Are We More Than Just a Machine?

[Darat]

For a long time, I accepted the materialist premise that man is no more than a machine.

Today, I am questioning that premise. However, I want to put forward some thoughts that were very influential in my acceptance of materialism. I do so in the hope that some people can provide insightful commentary on
the subject.

Just a few comments on what you posted.

We have a sense of what it means to behave in a good and moral fashion, versus in an evil fashion. We can observe "good" people and "bad" people.

I disagree, we have an ability to communicate to one another that we have a set of values that we compare our own and others' actions against. However what we consider bad and good is not an absolute and varies from person to person and culture to culture (consider something we in our culture consider terrible and “evil” – infanticide – however there have been cultures that considered it a "good" practice).

Certain brain injuries can turn "good" people into "bad" people. A good, upstanding, moral person can become an evil wretch because he survived a bullet to the brain. If that can happen, it seems difficult to accept that his behavior is truly good or evil.

(I'll not ask for references as I know you talking in general terms.) I would again say this can be viewed as “mechanical damage” e.g. it shows that brain damage can alter the values we use or even destroy them completely. It does not make someone "good" or "bad", merely alters how they react to certain stimulus.

Consider the case of one Adolf Hitler. Now, surely this man is a genuine symbol of evil. If anyone can be said to be truly evil, he is it. Hitler suffered from syphillitic dementia. This disease causes megalomania and immoral behavior. If a disease can so alter human behavior, can we say that our behavior is the result of a spirit, or a soul, or good and evil. Today, I am good. Tomorrow, I contract syphyllis, and I become evil?

Are you certain of this diagnoses of Hitler (especially given that even his earliest works are, for most of us, incoherent rants e.g. Mein Kampf).

To your core point however again I think this can be (I'm not saying it is) explained by looking at damage to the brain in a very mechanical manner, e.g. damage the processing systems and you get different outputs.

I would like to believe that I am more than just a machine. Indeed, I am leaning toward that belief. However, there is certain evidence in this regard that weighs against that conclusion. If my behavior can be so altered by the existence of chemicals, viruses, or injuries, it would seem that perhaps it's all just stimulus/response after all.

I always smile at the "just a machine", I don’t care if I am a machine or not, I like living, I like my experiences and if it is the result of some chemical processes what difference does it make?

 

[BillyJoe]

Meadmaker,

I would like to believe that I am more than just a machine. Indeed, I am leaning toward that belief. However, there is certain evidence in this regard that weighs against that conclusion. If my behavior can be so altered by the existence of chemicals, viruses, or injuries, it would seem that perhaps it's all just stimulus/response after all.

It seems that, by your own admission, the evidence points in a direction opposite to what you would "like to believe". Do you intend going with what you "like" or will you follow the evidence? Your head tells you "materialism", but your heart tells you "dualism". Which will you choose? Evidence or intuition?

As for the "it's all just stimulus/response after all", well, it's a pretty complex interwoven mass of stimuli/responses. Each neuron has a thousand inputs and a certain threshold has to be exceeded before it will fire. Each neuron that fires produces input into a thousand other neurones. You'll never sort it into a simple algorithm. Probably this is why it all seems so real - that there must be something more than a machine.

BJ

 

[Iacchus]

As for the "it's all just stimulus/response after all", well, it's a pretty complex interwoven mass of stimuli/responses. Each neuron has a thousand inputs and a certain threshold has to be exceeded before it will fire. Each neuron that fires produces input into a thousand other neurones. You'll never sort it into a simple algorithm. Probably this is why it all seems so real - that there must be something more than a machine.

None of which occurs by the way, when there is "no life" in the body.

 

[Iacchus]

If you can't tell the difference between the construct and what it is emulating, then there is no difference. This applies to any comparison between "genuine" and "fake" equally well. If there is no test you can perform to show the difference, there is no difference, and no amount of insistence that there is a difference will make a difference appear.

Do you mean like the decoy ducks which fool the other (real) ducks which fly over the lake? But of course ducks are kind of dumb, aren't they?

 

[Thomas]

Is this an admission that you don't know? Or, that you're relatively certain I don't know? You seem like a fairly learned person. So how is it that I can come to understand such things, and yet you haven't?

First of all it would be grand to know what "things" we're talking about.

You're obviously of the school that the Universe is strictly mechanical in nature, in other words a materialist, correct?

I believe that there exists things beyond our comprehension, but I don't think we have the slightest idea what they are.

So what could I possibly say to change your views on such matters? Little or next to nothing I suspect ... Or, it would take a lot more than I can explain on this thread, for sure.

Wow, that sounds really advanced. Well, first off, you could quit all the banter and tell me, for all to hear, what it is that you have discovered in man, that exists beyond mechanics?

It would be quite fair, I have already answered more than ten of your questions, but you still haven't answered as much as one of mine. Now, let's try again, last chance, what is it that exists in man beyond mechanics?

 

[Iacchus]

So, no one thinks the body was so-designed to coincide with "the life" that resides within it? After all, it's the life which articulates the body isn't it?

For example, if I decided to drive 300 miles up the coast -- which, is of the will by the way -- my body, every single last fiber of it, has no choice but to follow suit does it?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

So, no one thinks the body was so-designed to coincide with "the life" that resides within it? After all, it's the life which articulates the body isn't it? For example, if I decide -- which, is of the will -- to drive 300 miles up the coast, my body (every single last fiber of it) has no choice but to follow suit does it?

You have yet to provide any reason for one to suppose that "the will" is something other than a natural process within the body. You seem to believe that it is, though. Please correct me if I'm wrong about your belief, or provide evidence and reasoning for it? Not rhetoric, if you please.

 

[Iacchus]

You have yet to provide any reason for one to suppose that "the will" is something other than a natural process within the body. You seem to believe that it is, though. Please correct me if I'm wrong about your belief, or provide evidence and reasoning for it? Not rhetoric, if you please.

Are you familiar with what a withered corpse looks like? Where is the will to live? The only thing that sustains it is this living energy, or will.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Are you familiar with what a withered corpse looks like? Where is the will to live? The only thing that sustains it is this "living energy," or will.

Evidence? Reasoning?

 

[Thomas]

Your original question was if men were but machines, not if determinism was correct or not.

As a side note, I do find determinism to be correct and I don't find that quantum mechanics or any other immediate irregular phenomena; eliminates causality in any way. True determinism eliminates any actual free will, but still, it doesn't eliminate the feeling of it.

 

[Thomas]

Are you familiar with what a withered corpse looks like? Where is the will to live? The only thing that sustains it is this living energy, or will.

That is by far the worst pile of new age baloney I've heard in quite a while.

 

[Iacchus]

Evidence? Reasoning?

Well, considering that this "living energy" has always been a part of you since your inception? ...

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, considering that this "living energy" has always been a part of you since your inception? ...

I hadn't noticed. Even assuming you were right, however, how does that lead to the conclusion that the "living energy" sustains my body?

 

[RandFan]

Certain brain injuries can turn "good" people into "bad" people. A good, upstanding, moral person can become an evil wretch because he survived a bullet to the brain. If that can happen, it seems difficult to accept that his behavior is truly good or evil.

Yes, a very important point to consider. I have always held on to a "ghost in the machine" dualist belief. It has waxed and waned over the years.

Please see: Phineas Gage

Phineas P. Gage (1823 - May 21, 1860) was a railroad worker who suffered traumatic brain injury which inflicted severe damage to parts of his frontal lobe That part of the cerebral cortex in either hemisphere of the brain lying directly behind the foreheadfrontal lobes during a work accident. He survived but had a markedly altered personality providing some of the first clues that specific parts of the brain, particularly the frontal lobes, might be involved in specific psychological processes involved with emotion, personality and problem solving

 

[L7Cz]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by L7Cz
If you can't tell the difference between the construct and what it is emulating, then there is no difference. This applies to any comparison between "genuine" and "fake" equally well. If there is no test you can perform to show the difference, there is no difference, and no amount of insistence that there is a difference will make a difference appear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you mean like the decoy ducks which fool the other (real) ducks which fly over the lake? But of course ducks are kind of dumb, aren't they?

Cute analogy. Here is some adult cogitation: Are the ducks able to tell the difference between a real duck and a decoy? If not, then to the duck, there is no difference. I refer you to the quote you snipped and reposted: "If you can't tell the difference between the construct and what it is emulating, then there is no difference." If you are a duck, then your frame of reference is probably that of a duck, and you will probably be fooled by a decoy, too.

Well, considering that this "living energy" has always been a part of you since your inception?

What "living energy" are you referring to? Brain activity? Neuronic conductance of impulses? Metabolic processes? Inexorable progression to cellular death? What are you talking about?

 

[Iacchus]

I hadn't noticed. Even assuming you were right, however, how does that lead to the conclusion that the "living energy" sustains my body?

What, you've actually seen a corpse which was vibrant and alive? Come on now!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What, you've actually seen a corpse which was vibrant and alive? Come on now!

I said no such thing.

Answer my question, please. I am eager to see how you get from the idea "there is a living energy [will] within the body" to "the living energy [will] sustains the body."

 

[KelvinG]

And as if your mind is not already made up either? Why should I waste my time talking to you?

Yes, Iacchus, but the exact same can be said of you. You strut around here with this arrogant idea that everyone else should be open to your questions and your dogma, yet your mind is not open to theirs. You've stated that you don't believe you can be wrong when it comes to God's existence or the afterlife.

So, why the hell are you here? When pushed to answer questions you cop out by saying "Oh, you've already made up your mind so there is no use talking to you."
Pot meet kettle.

It reeks of hypocricy my friend.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, Iacchus, but the exact same can be said of you. You strut around here with this arrogant idea that everyone else should be open to your questions and your dogma, yet your mind is not open to theirs. You've stated that you don't believe you can be wrong when it comes to God's existence or the afterlife.

So, why the hell are you here? When pushed to answer questions you cop out by saying "Oh, you've already made up your mind so there is no use talking to you."
Pot meet kettle.

It reeks of hypocricy my friend.

Yes, you and other folks around here continue to present yourselves in such a way that only one of us can be right. In which case I would have to concur.

 

[KelvinG]

Yes, you and other folks around here continue to present yourselves in such a way that only one of us can be right. In which case I would have to concur.

Do you feel you present yourself in a way that only one of us can be right?
And if so, do you acknowledge that you might be the one who isn't right?