Kelvy wrote:
If you are suggesting that our consciousness EQUALS those reactions, then you are saying that consciousness should be able to develop as a result of any other series of chemical reactions.
Logical fallacy again there, Kelv :/. A more accurate statement would be that since our consciousness EQUALS these reactions, consciousness should be able to develop as a result of another IDENTICAL (or almost identical) series of chemical reactions, not just any random ones.
Kelvy wrote:
Very well. I don't believe it because I see no difference between your 'chemical brain reactions' and say.. lightning burning a tree...
and the state of lightning striking a tree could be said to be just as conscious as a brain.
You wouldn't say that if you had ever taken a class or read any books about how the brain works. I'm a computer scientist, but even my freshman biology class covered and confirmed most of what EvilPhysicist is saying. He just makes himself sound kinda arrogant in the way he presents it.
Kelvy wrote:
Basically you are saying that you do NOT believe in consciousness. You believe in PRE-Programed chemical processes and we are somhow fooled into thinking that we are making desicions and loving and hating things, wehn really it's all just a buncha pre-determined calulated responses.
We've been saying that it's chemical processes all along, but nowhere did we ever say that they were pre-programmed. The chemical processes are all responses to external stimuli that travel through our nerve system to our brain.
If you want to attribute God or the idea of a Soul to explain our higher thought processes which science hasn't found a 100% concrete answer for yet, that's fine. A lot of people do, and everyone's entitled to their beliefs. It's false to say that the laws of physics directly contradict the existence of consciousness as a function of our brains, though.
Allenj wrote:
Based on the fact that all evolution must stem from the basic survival instincts, where does man get the desire to do and see things that are completely un-necessary for survival?
Also, what about fun? Animals do things for fun, but humans are the only creatures I can think of that will purposely put ourselves in danger for the pursuit of fun. Being that this behavior goes against basic survival instincts, isn't it safe to say there's something different about us? Some chemical or spritual make-up that seperates us from all the other animals?
Actually, this can be explained by chemical reactions in the brain as well. Engaging in dangerous, "life-threatening" activities causes your brain to release large amounts of adrenaline and endorphins (feel free to make any minor corrections to this, Evil - it's been awhile since I took any sort of Bio class) which make you feel a variety of strong emotions. Usually fear, while you are engaging in the activity itself, followed by a strong sense of relief/euphoria that you "survived". It's that feeling of euphoria that thrillseekers try to achieve. Even when the activity that you're participating in is relatively safe like riding a rollercoaster, your brain is subconsciously tricked into thinking that you're doing something dangerous, giving you that adrenaline rush.
Allenj wrote:
After all, if we were just biological robots, why would anyone smoke? It goes completely against instinct, and is nothing more than a slow suicide.
Same deal, nicotine is a drug that affects the brain, making you feel pleasure. Why haven't humans evolved so that we have a genetic predisposition to avoid these "suicide sticks"? Simple. It takes millions of years for an evolution like this to occur, and humans have only been smoking for maybe a few thousand years at most.
Just because we're "biological robots" doesn't mean that we behave rationally or think logically all the time. We are governed by the chemicals in our brains. The balances of these chemicals are different in each person.