Adult version of "there is no santa clase"

T

Trawltopilot

Member
somebody smugly asked me the other day "Just out of curiosity: how do you decide what to do in a given situation? " to which i replied

everything that occurs in my body is a chemical reaction. all the

chemical reactions are mediated/controlled via enzymes which are

produced in quantities resulting in positive and negative feedback

chemical reactions which ultimately react with dna as the homeostatic

instruction manual.

my brain has developed partly through instinctual developments from my

dna ie arachnophobia, and partly as a response to my environment, always ultimately controlled by dna which grows our brain into a tool

to cope with a complex environment, always looking out for its

survival, and eventual reproduction, not because the genes goal is

reproduction, but because our genes are replications of genes(our parents genes) that had

a proclivity to reproduce. do you know why jealosy is one of the

strongest and most violence producing emotions? its because our dna has

strongly embedded in our brains development a defense against somebody

else impregnating your reproductive partner with other than your genes,

resulting in a huge waste of your energy and time, and your genetic death if you do not reproduce because of this

foreign adultery. Ie raising a child that does not contain your genes is your genetic death.

my choices are the end result of a causal continuum of millions of

neural interactions, ultimately leading me to make the best decision in

the interest of my genes. why does a male preying mantis let itself get

eaten by the female after mating? because the added nutrition to the

female will result in a more favorable genetic outcome (more eggs with

its genes inside) than running away.

we are exercising our brains on a website because of complex

psychological reasons that ultimately benefit many aspects that

could be considered in the genes interest.

why am i wasting my time writing this post instead of looking fore mates to impregnate? because my self sustaining chemical

reaction has effectively directed me to do it for reasons you can ask

an evolutionary minded psychologist, but i suspect its because proving people wrong in an argument has a definite effect on your ego/confidence, which may ultimately result in you becoming more psycologically attractive to possible mates, leading to more reproduction of your genes.

the chemical reactions that occur in my body and brrain are

fundamentally indistinguishable from a burning flame or pouring acid

into a buffer solution.

so to think that there is somebody behind the wheel in my brain calling

the shots is an infantile notion. i have no more choice than any other

chemical reaction that we would regard as nonliving.

let me ask you a question. Do you think you are alive?
 


57564.jpg
.
 
I am alive because I fulfill all of the requirements for life in GOHARrM; these include growth, organisation, homeostasis, adaptation, reproduction, response to stimuli, and movement.

128910927546313360.jpg
 
all these things are achievable via what you would consider nonlliving chemical reactions. reread this thread after grade school/highschool/a good college.
 
Can you give an example for each, how non-living can fulfill all of those? I just don't see it so if you could provide some examples that'd be helpful
 
another way to interprete modern brain research and their foundings and semi-related:

its pretty safe to say that our decisions are driven by our subconsciousness/unconscious mind. like they had this experiment where the researcher knew consciously BEFORE the participant which button he would eventually press.

so we are most definitely not driven as much by our conscious actions as we would like to think, maybe not at all. so its really hard to dismiss the OP from a methodological level.
 
it would take to long. simple thing you could ask yourself is this, what would happen if you could hypothetically remove all the dna and mitochondrial dna from a persons body.
 
yeah good post. basically if you believe that cause leads to effect while also believing you have free will, ie you are choosing your decisions,

this is like saying ur an atheist although u believe in God

you cant reconcile the two. either our decisions are already made up for us, or our brains are magic
 
props by the way, because you def seemed to have followed my point. it isnt sad however to understand that we arent 'alive' because it essentially means that what you are felling in your thoughts and emotions is actually you feelin the fundamental laws of physics, which never change, so in a way you could think of this as a proof of essential immortality, or more correctly, nonmortality.

 
this should not be a depressing realization. . it isnt sad to

understand that we arent 'alive' because it essentially means that

what you are feeling in your thoughts and emotions is actually you

feeling the fundamental laws of physics, which never change, so in a

way you could think of this as a proof of essential immortality, or

more correctly, nonmortality. for example, the rush of oxytocin a

woman gets at the moment of birth resulting in an unparralled sense of

protection and instant love is your dna essentially, forcing you to

look out for its copy you just produced. so in this instance of strong

emotional attachment, you really are 'feeling' the fundamental nature

of chemistry, physics, and extended, the universe as a whole, and

these laws persist, so what we are made of is for all intensive

purposes indestructible and tightly connected with the street you walk

on.
 
In other words, you have sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.

I admit though that was pretty fucking interesting to read. I don't think we're living, I think we're kind of just along for the ride. Like all that shit you said about chemicals in your brain and all that. Whatever happens isn't anyones choice. It's like there's a chain reaction that makes everything happen. It also makes me think about randomness though. If you make a computer choose a number at random, is that number really random? Or is there the same sort of reactions that happen in your brain and it would be next to impossible to predict, but everything led up to that moment. Just like if you play line rider and you make a super long track. If you looked just at the end you would never be able to predict what would happen but once you play it until the end, it's the same every fucking time. I think life is like that.
 
Fuck I was hoping to have a bigger wall of text than that.

The size of your wall of text is directly proportional to how smart you are.
 
by the way i clicked your link and the paper title is

'QUANTUM PHYSICS IN NEUROSCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY: A

NEUROPHYSICAL MODEL OF MIND/BRAIN INTERACTION'

so in order me to regard the writers of the article as either sane, or not biased beyond all fucking recognition, there gonna have to leave out the MIND/BRAIN INTERACTION horse shit.

making a distinction between the mind and the brain is something people who think human consciousnessis MAGICAL and this anthropocentric idea is secluded to the very dumbest psychologists, who simply lack the mental capability of understanding that the amount of neurons in the brain combined with their multude of layered connections leads to such an extremely complex mental structure that is so complex it tricks retarded psychologists, and you, into thinking that YOUR BRAIN IS MAGICAL AND TRANCENDS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

you brought a knife to a shootout buddy
 
If you truly believed there was no such thing as free will you wouldn't be trying to convince others of your belief.

Isn't this a repost? I'll try to remember what I said last time.

Given that every human being experiences free will and what we know of emergent properties in biology, it's a bit too soon to say that free will doesn't exist.

 
I suggest you read up on both quantum mechanics and quantum computing. New research shows that neurons use an 8 bit quantum computer to complete basic thought processes. Central to QM is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which holds that no object exhibiting quantum phenomena (like the electrons used by your neurons in thinking) can have position or velocity in the classical sense. The way you think is defined by a probabilistic model based on the laws of quantum mechanics, and not upon the classical newtonian rules that you learn in high school. Even if you knew every knowable piece of information about the chemicals in your brain, you still would not be able to predict a coherent human thought.
And don't get so angry. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to educate you on a topic that i find immeasurably fascinating.
 
So, you honestly believe that if I were to jump out of my chair, rip my tv off the wall, throw it out the window, grab a knife, sprint across my front lawn and into my neighbor's house, stab him 638 times, chop of his penis, feed it to my dog, kill my dog, eat my dog, then burn my house down and move to Canada, there is some unknown force driving me, and I didn't do it because of my own free will? You, sir, are a fucking moron.
 
yes but HUP does not give you the ability to violate causality. at best your decision may be randomly affected by QM but this does not IN ANY WAY put you in control of your actions. USING QM TO PROMOTE FREE WILL IS A COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING OF QM. QM will at best be like a 50/50 coin toss that may have AFFECTS IN EITHER DIRECTION ON YOUR THOUGHTS.

and again this is pseudoscience brought to you by the very dumbest of psychologists, who cannot understand high orders of magnitude complexity
 
I never said free will exists. It's an interesting question, the technology just isn't there yet to give us an answer. It's perfectly valid to hold the determinist position as it gels with what we know. However, it's unscientific to say that free will definitely doesn't exist.
 
Probability may be the wrong way to think about this problem in the context of QM. QM holds that not only are quantum states determined probabilistically, but that they don't exist until they are forced to. This idea is commonly known as superposition. This is what Feynman meant when he said that, "nobody understands quantum mechanics." It's not just that these things are really really complex (though they certainly are). It's that they don't exist prior to measurement (thought) in the first place. I wouldn't say that this intrinsically points to an element of free will, but it does suggest the idea that a deterministic interpretation of thought is at best incomplete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top