We're just a bunch of chemical reactions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew2009
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is always funny hearing a materialist say things like that the self is an illusion. If that is the case, who is the one discerning that the self is an illusion? 😛
 
Windfish said:
It is always funny hearing a materialist say things like that the self is an illusion. If that is the case, who is the one discerning that the self is an illusion? 😛
Click to expand...
According to David Hume the self is just “a bunch of perceptions”. So presumably the perceptions club together and vote to decide whether they exist independently! Perhaps they are revolutionaries…🙂
 
tonyrey said:
According to David Hume the self is just “a bunch of perceptions”. So presumably the perceptions club together and vote to decide whether they exist independently! Perhaps they are revolutionaries…🙂
Click to expand...
So who’s perception is it that I am? What of those perceptions I decide to “blow-off”? How does this effect the work of scientists? Does the bunch of chemical reactions invalidat it’s self bcause any proof would just be a bunch of chemical reations?
I’m not a philosopher, but it seems that any logic must rest on a basic assumtion. A part of an “if-Then” reasoning. Otherwise, meaning goes out the window. 🤷
 
the_7th_one said:
So whose perception is it that I am? What of those perceptions I decide to “blow-off”? How does this effect the work of scientists? Does the bunch of chemical reactions invalidate itself because any proof would just be a bunch of chemical reactions?
I’m not a philosopher, but it seems that any logic must rest on a basic assumption. A part of an “if-Then” reasoning. Otherwise, meaning goes out the window. 🤷
Click to expand...
I never cease to be amazed that Hume - who was a fine philosopher in many ways - never acknowledged this flaw in his reasoning. It’s difficult to believe he was unaware of it, but we all have our blind spots… 🙂
 
Andrew2009, here’s a link that may be of some help to you regarding this confusion. youtube.com/watch?v=86wmAXrerj8&feature=related

It’s a video in which Father Barron discusses the soul and some misconceptions concerning the soul. It’s just a quick response video (only about 3 minutes long) so it won’t give you a lot of detail, but it does help with the broader picture. Also, Father Barron is brilliant and watching any of his videos or hearing any of his sermons is always a good use of time. 🙂
 
Andrew2009 said:
I’m doing a course on alcohol & drug addiction - it’s very interesting, and the teacher has just started to get into neuroscience and brain chemistry.

Anyway, the teacher maintains that all of our thoughts and emotions are simply electrical charges and chemical reactions in the brain. There is no soul or spirit, and no purely “psychological” phenomena - everything is a chemical reaction and/or an electrical impulse. Everything is purely physical, there is no other dimension to us.

I asked - if this is the case, how do you explain an actual thought or emotion, i.e. the thing we actually experience? This seems to be something separate and different from the purely physical activity in the brain that may be “causing” the thought or emotion. E.g. a feeling of fear or a memory that someone has seems to be a different thing to a bunch of molecules colliding and interacting. He says they are one and the same thing, but he didn’t really explain any further.
Click to expand...
Even if our thoughts and emotions are not purely physical, they are obviously highly intertwined with our physical bodies. I mean, just consider where in space you perceive your self-consciousness to be. It’s in your brain! Not 5 feet in front of you, not in another dimension, not in your foot or your stomach or heart, but in your head. If people are knocked in the head, they lose their self-consciousness. When you go to sleep, you lose it. If you take drugs, your perception of reality changes.

I believe emotions are basically biological. That’s not to say we don’t have the free will to control them. We can choose the physical response our body has to a stimuli. I also think our thoughts are not entirely freely-willed. Most of our daily thoughts are on auto-pilot. We aren’t faced with the constant dilemma of “What am I going to think about next??” We just think it and are aware of what we’re thinking, but that doesn’t mean our transcendental souls caused it.
 
Andrew2009 said:
I’m doing a course on alcohol & drug addiction - it’s very interesting, and the teacher has just started to get into neuroscience and brain chemistry.

Anyway, the teacher maintains that all of our thoughts and emotions are simply electrical charges and chemical reactions in the brain. There is no soul or spirit, and no purely “psychological” phenomena - everything is a chemical reaction and/or an electrical impulse. Everything is purely physical, there is no other dimension to us.

I asked - if this is the case, how do you explain an actual thought or emotion, i.e. the thing we actually experience? This seems to be something separate and different from the purely physical activity in the brain that may be “causing” the thought or emotion. E.g. a feeling of fear or a memory that someone has seems to be a different thing to a bunch of molecules colliding and interacting. He says they are one and the same thing, but he didn’t really explain any further.

The teacher also claimed that Descartes is responsible for the “false” distinction between mind and matter, but that this idea has been completely debunked by reasearch in neuroscience in the last 10 - 15 years.

I wonder what the Catholic Church has to say on this subject? Is anyone of aware of any good reading material that deals with this subject? Is anyone aware of any writings by contemporary philosophers or scientists that deal with this, and that an amateur like myself could understand?

I have a feeling that this issue is far from settled, and that things are a bit more complicated than my teacher claims…
Click to expand...
He’s like a hardware computer guy denying the existence of pictures on the monitor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top