What do you say to someone who equates all of human beliefs as chemical reactions in the brain?
The nature of being
I am sorry, but this post is going to be long. The answer to this qeustion cannot be said in a few words.
The problem with words, is that they hype up the true reality of things. Somebody might say that a “quantum particle” has something to do with perception. The word quantum, and the whole excitement that surrounds this new science, can encourage one to think that human beings will soon explain the human-mind.
The problem is that, whether the mind is physical or not, it cannot be said that the brain itself is responsible for our ability to think. The brain is certainly necessary in that area, but the potential to do so has existed as long as the universe has been around. The nature of thought, in itself, cannot be merely explained by its immediate physicality, but instead, its true nature can only be revealed by understanding the ultimate reality from which it is born; since it is the ultimate reality of things, which defines the powers and potential of physical being.
What is it that commanded that once physical things exist, they should then bring forth new qualities? Why should it be true that when the right chemicals mix, the double helix is actualized, giving rise to living creatures who act toward self defined ends and goals; creatures who love each other and hate each other. Does that really make sense under a naturalistic world view?
Does it make sense that when blind unthinking inanimate objects, such as atoms, randomly form a pattern at some point in space and time, they become self aware and desire life? What is life that it should be desired, and what is desire, that is should become actual given any physical event in time? To attribute these things purely to differing variations of energy, that my dreams and desires are ultimately the dreams of dancing atoms, such a thing betrays the quality of what we experience.
The quality of my being cannot be reasonably defined by two atoms crashing into each other, something more and unseen is happening; my desiring an apple, which is in itself fundamentally another grouping of inanimate atoms or individual objects, cannot be explained by pointing out a relationship between two objects. We can say at best that reality is surely the medium by which possibilities become actual, but I am defined, only by the reality that becomes actual, given the relationship of two objects.
The objects themselves are not the foundation of being and quality, and it cannot be emprically defined why some qualities should exist just because a pattern emerges at some point in space in time.
It could have easily been the case, that instead of a bigbang, a giant animal of some sort, came in to existence, which in turn gave birth to other strange animals. I can imagine a universe which could never actualised life given any interaction, despite having the same substances as ours. We can only say that things are happening in a certain way, we cannot say, according to science, that those happenings are ultimately the cause of energy. To say that physics ought to be the ultimate reality of being, is not supported, and is simply a belief. The nature of feeling, the nature of happiness, the nature of love; these things are not physical. They merely happen to exist in relation to the laws of physical reality.
Naturalism is not science, and it is not apparent at all why i should think so. Is it not more reasonable to think that physical reality is merely the metaphorical device through which immaterial possibilities and abstract ideas are expressed? Reality makes sense if the ultimate reality of a thing is a personal will; since desire is personal, life is personal, experience is personal, love is personal, but nature is impersonal. Not only that, an impersonal nature, is a perfect canvas or background upon which to express and define personal things. It is not evident, at all, that the personal and impersonal are the same thing. It seems more natural to think that they have to different natures, although such a thing is expressed within physical nature itself. Such things were destined from the beginning to become real.
What does that tell you about the ultimate reality of your being? It tells me that there is a purpose to existence. To say that some atoms have the nature of feeling, and others have in them ideas and dreams, is simply ridiculous.
We can say that it just exists for no reason, or we can say that there is something more going on then physical interaction.
OK, just kidding, sorry.