Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[NAOS]

The brain is the least dispensable physical part of the self. I don't know how but I do know that without it I am not me. Every other physical part of me I can imagine being without. Losing some other parts may change me profoundly but I would still have something that I could call me.

meh. "self".

If you want to get into this further, you're going to have to be more specific about where you're getting your evidence for these speculations/claims.

 

[♪alt13]

meh. "self".

If you want to get into this further, you're going to have to be more specific about where you're getting your evidence for these speculations/claims.

What's your beef with "self"? Maybe more specifically "myself". From my perspective the existence of yourself is dependent upon mine, whereas mine is not dependent on yours. Doesn't that make myself pretty damn important?

I've never met "someone" without a brain. I've met plenty of "someones" without other bits. Until I see otherwise I will continue to give the brain special importance.

 

[NAOS]

If I handed you a crank set for a bicycle, would you think to yourself, "I've just been given the soul of a bike" or "I've just been given the least dispensable part of a bike"?

I've met amputees who, post-amputation, have been noticeably changed. Check back in with them in 5 years, and the change is more pronounced. It obviously depends on what has been amputated; and it definitely varies person-to-person.

I think what we're really talking about here is the conscious life that an individual bears into the present. My main beef is that "self" seems more and more like sloppy shorthand (at least to me, personally). Have you ever met someone without a heart (who wasn't laying next to an enormous machine)? Have you ever met someone without afferent nerves? Have you ever met someone without a spinal cord?

 

[♪alt13]

If I handed you a crank set for a bicycle, would you think to yourself, "I've just been given the soul of a bike" or "I've just been given the least dispensable part of a bike"?

I've met amputees who, post-amputation, have been noticeably changed. Check back in with them in 5 years, and the change is more pronounced. It obviously depends on what has been amputated; and it definitely varies person-to-person.

I think what we're really talking about here is the conscious life that an individual bears into the present. My main beef is that "self" seems more and more like sloppy shorthand (at least to me, personally). Have you ever met someone without a heart (who wasn't laying next to an enormous machine)? Have you ever met someone without afferent nerves? Have you ever met someone without a spinal cord?

It is so sloppy shorthand. I'm in a sloppy mood.

 

[Siro]

If I handed you a crank set for a bicycle, would you think to yourself, "I've just been given the soul of a bike" or "I've just been given the least dispensable part of a bike"?

I've met amputees who, post-amputation, have been noticeably changed. Check back in with them in 5 years, and the change is more pronounced. It obviously depends on what has been amputated; and it definitely varies person-to-person.

I think what we're really talking about here is the conscious life that an individual bears into the present. My main beef is that "self" seems more and more like sloppy shorthand (at least to me, personally). Have you ever met someone without a heart (who wasn't laying next to an enormous machine)? Have you ever met someone without afferent nerves? Have you ever met someone without a spinal cord?

The changes in the amputees' personality happen in the brain though. In theory, by comparing the difference in brain structure before the amputation to that of 5 years later, you should be able to predict all of those personality changes.

I am with Salt32. The brain is what makes you, you. It is the organ that contains your essence and enables your qualia. If you transplant the head onto a different body, you'd still be you. Of course since the brain is also reactive, like you stated, the effect of being in a different body will eventually affect your personality (for example having a bigger penis might make you more confident, and I hear heyhey has a 21-incher), but you will still have all your memories, your experiences, the narrative continuity of your consciousness, and the base personality which will react to the environment.

I also realize that I'm committing a fallacy of concreteness. The boundaries of what separates the person as an entity are blurry and hard to define. Am I the same person I was 5 years ago? Would I be the same person if I got a tattoo? Whatever. This isn't a philosophy dissertation, and I'm not going to worry about every facet of the argument.

The essence of Salt32's argument is correct, though. If you are to map all the information in my brain into a different substrate without my knowledge, and then put that artificial brain into a robot body that looks identical to my human body, then I would not notice a thing. Neither will anyone else. In all meaningful ways, I would still be me.

If you do the opposite, and clone my body to the last detail, but without copying the contents of my brain, then it is an entirely different person. They'd have a different personality, skills, history, reaction to stimuli, and everything else. That person, if he posted on this forum for example, would be recognized as a completely separate being.

Edit: I just noticed it's Salt13! ROFL.

 

[NAOS]

Yo, Siro, this was really helpful today. Perfect timing (in regards to a few things I've been thinking about lately). Thanks!

Would rep, but I gotta spread first.

 

[Siro]

Yo, Siro, this was really helpful today. Perfect timing (in regards to a few things I've been thinking about lately). Thanks!

Would rep, but I gotta spread first.

Same. I really enjoyed this discussion.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Siro, naos, hey hey, etc... Ya'll are smart mo fos.

I feel dumb reading your posts. I can't sling big *** words around on a level anywhere near you guys.


I'm glad I stayed out of this discussion. My brain hurts

Selling one's own self short is pretty much a cop out. Inexperience (read: ignorance) is a far cry from dumbness. You're capable if you have interest and willingness to research and learn any topic. One's retention and other applicable factor may influence the necessary time involvement, but I severely doubt your incapacity to understand most anything in this topic.

At least you're not in the perpetual I'm terrible at math and that's a good thing mentality some have. Ooh, maybe something for the pet peeve thread.

 

[fishonjazz]

Selling one's own self short is pretty much a cop out. Inexperience (read: ignorance) is a far cry from dumbness. You're capable if you have interest and willingness to research and learn any topic. One's retention and other applicable factor may influence the necessary time involvement, but I severely doubt your incapacity to understand most anything in this topic.

At least you're not in the perpetual I'm terrible at math and that's a good thing mentality some have. Ooh, maybe something for the pet peeve thread.

I know my strengths and weaknesses. Word slinging is one of my weaknesses.

I also have the ability to recognize the skills of others and when I do so I often give them compliments. I'm sorry that these types of things make you feel a certain way and feel the need to judge me. I won't hold it against you however.
Carry on

 

[babe]

Meh. I can say that you're being contrarian by denying the absolutely dominant role of the brain in information processing. I am sure some processing happens throughout the nervous system, but compare the volume of processing matter in the brain to the rest of the nervous system, which mostly consists of relays and sensors.

A defender of objective materialism in our current state of technology sometimes will fall into the trap, logically-speaking, of insisting that there is nothing that we can not measure, observe, detect, quantify, test, etc etc with our present technology, and end up asserting nonsense like "There can be no "God" because. . . . well, let alone because we can't objectively define or present a demonstrable thing answering to our definition. . . .nobody has scientifically demonstrated such a being."

This is like people saying, before the microscope was invented, that there were no germs or bacteria, or viruses.

This is like saying, before modern science developed the tools necessary to explore the ultimate nature of matter, that there are no "atoms" or indivisible particles which distinct characteristics. . . . . let alone sub-atomic particles. . . .

Well, I think science is good. From the time I was a child I understood that it was a system of exploration of things unknown, and in it's most important characteristics included a rule about reproducibility, meaning a result could be sufficient, rigorously described in terms of hypothesis, tools, equipment, methods, experimental design and conduct. . . . : to the extent that independent researchers could reconstruct the experiment and verify or disprove your results, and maybe propose other conclusions to your experiment than the one you prefer. . . .

That is what I understand as "Science".

I've always understood that religion is not conducted on those rules, and I've always defended the human being's right of belief. . . . it is essentially the same right as the right to question authority. . . . and it is the same right that scientists need to have to proceed with their business.

I haven't had time to read all the responses here, but I can tell it has been a productive discussion. . . .thank you all.

 

[Gameface]

A defender of objective materialism in our current state of technology sometimes will fall into the trap, logically-speaking, of insisting that there is nothing that we can not measure, observe, detect, quantify, test, etc etc with our present technology, and end up asserting nonsense like "There can be no "God" because. . . . well, let alone because we can't objectively define or present a demonstrable thing answering to our definition. . . .nobody has scientifically demonstrated such a being."

This is like people saying, before the microscope was invented, that there were no germs or bacteria, or viruses.

This is like saying, before modern science developed the tools necessary to explore the ultimate nature of matter, that there are no "atoms" or indivisible particles which distinct characteristics. . . . . let alone sub-atomic particles. . . .

Well, I think science is good. From the time I was a child I understood that it was a system of exploration of things unknown, and in it's most important characteristics included a rule about reproducibility, meaning a result could be sufficient, rigorously described in terms of hypothesis, tools, equipment, methods, experimental design and conduct. . . . : to the extent that independent researchers could reconstruct the experiment and verify or disprove your results, and maybe propose other conclusions to your experiment than the one you prefer. . . .

That is what I understand as "Science".

I've always understood that religion is not conducted on those rules, and I've always defended the human being's right of belief. . . . it is essentially the same right as the right to question authority. . . . and it is the same right that scientists need to have to proceed with their business.

I haven't had time to read all the responses here, but I can tell it has been a productive discussion. . . .thank you all.

I think the trap you describe is one only a strawman would fall into... I don't think anyone who knows anything really thinks we can know all things at the present time with our present technology. I really can't imagine anyone asserting that.

As to anyone claiming we can prove God doesn't exist...again, something only the strawman claims. I don't need to prove the non-existence of anything. Not dragons, not goblins, not invisible pink unicorns, not flying spaghetti monsters and not God. If someone makes a positive claim of their existence I'll listen to it as long as their claim is based on something...anything.

Until then, I'm busy listening to other stuff.

 

[Siro]

A defender of objective materialism in our current state of technology sometimes will fall into the trap, logically-speaking, of insisting that there is nothing that we can not measure, observe, detect, quantify, test, etc etc with our present technology, and end up asserting nonsense like "There can be no "God" because. . . . well, let alone because we can't objectively define or present a demonstrable thing answering to our definition. . . .nobody has scientifically demonstrated such a being."

This is like people saying, before the microscope was invented, that there were no germs or bacteria, or viruses.

This is like saying, before modern science developed the tools necessary to explore the ultimate nature of matter, that there are no "atoms" or indivisible particles which distinct characteristics. . . . . let alone sub-atomic particles. . . .

Well, I think science is good. From the time I was a child I understood that it was a system of exploration of things unknown, and in it's most important characteristics included a rule about reproducibility, meaning a result could be sufficient, rigorously described in terms of hypothesis, tools, equipment, methods, experimental design and conduct. . . . : to the extent that independent researchers could reconstruct the experiment and verify or disprove your results, and maybe propose other conclusions to your experiment than the one you prefer. . . .

That is what I understand as "Science".

I've always understood that religion is not conducted on those rules, and I've always defended the human being's right of belief. . . . it is essentially the same right as the right to question authority. . . . and it is the same right that scientists need to have to proceed with their business.

I haven't had time to read all the responses here, but I can tell it has been a productive discussion. . . .thank you all.

I'm not going to respond to "science doesn't know everything" and "you can't prove there is no God" portions because they are too philosophically elementary, and have been responded to a million times over.

I will point out the contradiction in your thinking though. You make two conflicting points. First, science does not rule out a creator because our understanding has limits. This is a materialist stance. You are saying that given a sufficient level of understanding, a hypothesis about the nature of God can be advanced. God is thus an ontologically natural phenomenon that can be understood. Later, you make the claim that God's existence does not fall into the bounds of scientific inquiry and must be left to religious belief. That's an immaterialist argument for God.

These are mutually exclusive arguments. I can easily respond to either point, but not both at the same time. Make up your mind.