We're just cells.

Remove all ads!

And they're hardly new and hardly useful, so why do they keep repeating?

 

Apparently some people find them appealing. Luckily they are a fractional minority. The extinction of ideas takes a while.

 

Ideas can't be killed (who said that?). All right, don't flame me for this, but I recall seeing some pretty interesting ideas on Mein Kampf. I can't share them with you, since it's been a while and I no longer have the book.
ALSO, knowing "the enemy" is useful to create counter strategies to minimize their influence, and this can be applied to many areas, not only in combat. Mind you people, racism is still alive and kicking, only under a different mask.
More on topic: saying we're just cells is denying all humans have done. This definition doesn't help to understand us as a whole. I might be sharpshooting, but really, you're leaving out too many things that define us as human beings.

 

Still believe the world is flat? Still think the sun revolves around the earth?

I'll move away from the idea of Hitler, because as a historian, I'm very influenced by AJP Taylor, and have no desire to offend anyone.

The point I'm trying to get across is that if we're all just cells, how can you explain a person's mind, their character? You can't just claim that their cells are aligned in a certain way which explains how they are. It's something more than that.

 

Daie, that's what we have the neuro-biological... I want to say functionalism (but I'm too lazy to bust out any of my books and look this stuff up) for. To explain how all that is "mind" is causally reducable to "brain states". Besides claiming the existance of a mind means you sure have your work cut out for you, forget Thomas Hobbes, people are still ripping Rene Descartes to pieces today for putting forth Substance Dualism.

It would be easier to posit that our existence is a token identifier for our actual being (as it would be merely changing the logic of language into physical being) then for our existence being dualistic in nature. Dualism suffers from "interface" problems, revolving around interaction between the mind and the body; Substance and Material Dualism both suffer from the mind-body complex.

 

I'd go for the Platonic 'Mind Body and Soul' distinction. As soon as people mention psychology or science, I switch off and return to my philosophy books.

 

Well, yes, ideas are passed on and all that, as are genes - but that's hardly the *purpose*. Biologically (for genes), sure - that's what we evolved to do - but isn't that in itself pointless?

Things only have as much point as you invest them with - if you don't attach a point or meaning or whathaveyou to something, then it has none. By this thinking I'd say that objectively, life has no point - but subjectively you can put as much point into life as you so choose.

That's exactly what I claim! And if I bashed you over the head hard enough to screw up that alignment and give you brain damage - the person and character that you are would cease to be, because that's all there is.

Why does there need to be any more? We have a reasonable explanation already which eliminates the *need* for there to be anything 'else' floating around. That doesn't mean that there isn't - but there's no reason to believe that there is, either - so why do so?

 

SO you think that by altering a person's genetic makeup, we can control their mind? How do you account for people's nopinions on things from this point of view.

Do you believe in the soul, Aiky? Or an afterlife?

You asked where my beliefs come from. They're a combination of the philosophy I study, and a little book called the Bible.

The philosophy and ethics I study as a student, is focused on the philosophy of religion, and ethical systems. Try researching Virtue Ethics

 

Hmm, well, by virtue of their genetic makeup, ants and bees and whathaveyou are fully controlled by the needs of the colony/hive/whatever - I suppose such a thing could be inflicted on humans in some wacked out sci-fi/horror future...

I might be getting this mixed up because of how you've worded it - but is this the 'if we knew every little thing about your genes we could predict your every action' question? Because if so the answer is 'no', because there are all kinds of other factors such as social conditioning, what's going on around you, etc etc.

Nope, because I don't see any good reason to. There's nothing (beyond what some people have said - but I don't consider them the most reliable source of information around...) to suggest that there is, so why would I...?

I have problems with understanding why people believe in the various religious systems - it doesn't make much sense to me why people will believe these things with no supporting evidence while there are plausible alternate explanations. I can see why people would *want* to believe it, but not how they actually can (short of childhood indoctrination and such, which I was planning to rant about at some point).

But maybe my 'God spot' is just underdeveloped

 

And how do these affect your cells? Surely if every aspect of your character is determined by your cells, then social conditioning should affect your cells?

There's no evidence to discredit it either. Not effectively, anyway.

 

'Cause it's fun. Seriously, you should explore why people believe in things greater than themselves rather than just shaking it off. It was quite the psychological eye-opener when I did. And working out other ways that it 'could be' is pretty fun too.

 

I'm sure a biologist or neurologist could properly explain this - all I can do is bull**** on
With your brain cells aligned as they are, you can do all the good stuff of learning, etc. - this can be applied just as easily to things which affect your personality. It all comes down to the brain, how it's put together, and hence the cells that make it up (and beyond if you feel like getting into chemistry and physics...).

There doesn't *need* to be any evidence to discredit it. You can't discredit me if I say that there are ninja space monkeys floating in Earth's orbit - does that make it any more plausible? (That's the argument I used tio push myself from agnostic to atheist - sure, there *could* be a God, but why bother being even open to the possibility when I think it silly to be open to the possibility of other things which have no evidence put forth to support them?)

I try, but I'm yet to get an answer that satisfies me (hence why I asked the question of Daie in the first place - I'm not just 'shaking it off'). They all seem so arbitrary - unsupported, unreasoned. I would love to understand why people believe in this kind of stuff. Some can be written off as ignorant or whatnot - but that doesn't explain those who are intelligent and knowledgeable who believe.

One thing I know of that it could be attributed to is the 'god spot', the area of the brain responsible for spiritual experiences. If feels like a cop-out to pass it all off onto that, but meh - it's the only thing that fits into my worldview (seeing that I know religious people are all ignorant, irrational, or stupid...).

OTOH, if you can enlighten me as to why you believe - by all means do so...

 

Aik, I believe because it's what my life experience has led me to. I know that's an intellectually unsatisfying answer, but it's what I've got. I tried atheism and it didn't work for me - at my core, I believe there's a God in the universe, even if my understanding of the nature of that God is pretty radically different from what's espoused by most formal religions. This isn't the place to go into that, so if you care to discuss it, PM me or catch me in the FAI.

There definitely is something that raises a human consciousness above that of an animal or AI machine. I see it as being the spark of curiosity and creativity that makes humans strive to change things. This is something that animals don't do. Exactly what that is biologically and how it arose during the course of evolution, I don't know. Is it a gift from God, or is it human nature trying to imitate God? If it's the latter, does it really matter if God turns out to be nothing more than a myth? I don't think so - I think this is one of those cases where you don't bother about where somethign came from, you just take what you have and make the best possible use of it that you can.

 

I'm assuming that this was said in jest, as there are many very intelligent people who also deeply pious - take Sir Isaac Newton for example.

 

I don't know how to put this, but...

Some people still do.

Memetic theory is incredibly fascinating, how ideas evolve and change in the same way as living things.

 

Yes I can. We've been there, there aren't any. If you'd said round Alpha Centuri, then I couldn't discredit you.

There are many theories which prove God's existance. Ontological Arguement, Telelogical Arguement, Cosmological Arguement etc.

Besides, many commited atheists and agnostics become believers in later life, case and point CS Lewis, one of Britain's greatest (imho) theologians, and author the Narnia Chronicles

 

Good stuff.

I suppose I would like to share my experiences, but that would be off topic.

 

Sure we've been there...one shuttle at a time. The monkeys could have been hiding on the other side of the planet. Or even hiding in plain sight. They are ninja space monkeys, after all.

 

Ooops. *aren't
Trust me to leave out the two characters most important to the meaning of the sentence...

Rally: Okay, I'm just going to give up trying to respond you your post, because I can't think of anything worthwhile to say to it. It leaves me with no clearer understanding of anything, but I can't form any questions that actually help with that, so I'll just stop Your reasoning is utterly alien to me...

This theories do nothing of the sort. They can provide an alternative explanation to those theories that do without God, but they certainly don't 'prove' anything. There is still no real 'need' for God to exist and have created the universe as there are other better supported arguments and theories with a stronger scientific angle.

And the 'ontological argument' sounds like absolute nonsense. To quote from wikipedia:

... yeah, suuuuuure ...

And many commited religious people become atheists or agnostics later on in life - what's your point?

 

St. Thomas of Anslem's argument about existence being a quality has been null and void since Kant came on the scene.

Anyway it is essentially impossible to prove the existence of god because of the massive logical contradictions by a paradigm being creating a flawed universe. However a universe without a god at the same time raises a series of serious philosophical questions, primarily in respect to its seemingly inherent need to always existed (at the very least as a singularity). An infinite being has no problem existing forever as its a requirement for its nature to be true, the case isn't true for finite entity. Being we all, at least should, except the theory of energy conservation, an entire universe cannot simply come into being which means a singularity has to have existed infinitely by the nature of our constraints. Assuming the singularity doesn't have free will, after infathomable years of existing as a singularity, how and why does it explode? I am assuming a open universe model because near all evidence points to a lack of sufficient mass needed for a closed universe.

Now we could posit a solution as that the underlying nature encasing the multiverse or universe is chaotic in nature which would do away with the theory of energy conservation and allow for a spontaneous creation of the universe. However by the inherent nature of that argument it undermines its and everyone elses argument.