/hum/ - Humanities

Just chemicals.

We are just organic robots.

Our brains are just organic computers.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is a christcuck level idiot.

>>1685203
a lot of pain wear and tear type shit in ur body is an emotion especially when ur endocannabinoid systems empty

>>1685203
There's a lot more to it than chemicals. Like the fucking brain.

That's like asking if a keyboard is a computer program.

>>1685212
>t, Karl Pooper

>>1685221

I do not know what or who you are reffering to

>>1685215
sounds like you've inhaled too many cannabinoids

>>1685240
You have egocentrism.

>>1685221
Karl Popper wasn't a materialist?

>>1685203
No, and it's a retarded idea to begin with.

>>1685203
Yes.

You have wants, desires, and needs, that stem from the limbic part of your brain. Without these you wouldn't even see the point in moving, or eating.

Otherwise known as human nature.

>>1685203
>2016
>believing in (((biochemistry)))

File: philosophy micky.jpg (112KB, 419x536px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 419x536px

>>1685203

>>1685279
Autism.

>>1685203
Emotions have a phenomenological component which is not reducible to the chemicals that cause them.

>>1685290
?

>>1685305
No they don't

>>1685203
Yeah, or it's all material at least, but that doesn't devalue it.

>>1685203
The chemicals trigger a certain kind of response, but they aren't all that determines our actions.

>>1685203
Even if it is, that doesn't change anything.

We still act the same either way.

Emotions are a function of chemicals.

Emotions = chemicals is naive.

Are chairs just wood or is there more to it than that?

Is a book just atoms or is there more to it than that?

>>1685276
Underrated comment

>>1685212
How do you know this?

>>1685203
It's not just chemicals, it's also electricity.

>>1685203

False dilemma. Saying "just chemicals" trivialises the magnificent and awe-inspiring beauty and complexity of nature.

>>1685218
bad analogy
>>1685784
>Are chairs just wood or is there more to it than that?
There's like a cushion and stuff
>Is a book just atoms?
You'll find most objects are

You're very right about emotions being functions, or maybe the combined result, of chemicals.

>>1686106
>There's like a cushion and stuff
His point was that even if you can make a chair with just the wood, there is more to a chair than just wood. For example, even for the same mass of the same type of wood, a shelf has different properties to a chair, because their organization is important. Or a book, which is composed of atoms but also is a recording of a specific type of information.

>>1686121
You're saying this like the chemistry itself happens randomly. All that is at least as true for the chemicals that determine emotions, doesn't change the fact that it's chemicals

>>1686141
Yes, literally every bit of matter is just chemicals.

The important thing is function and relation of the chemicals. Which makes the reduction "Are emotions just chemicals?" stupid.

>>1685784

>Emotions are a function of chemicals.

That doesnt explain what emotions are but just what produces them.

>>1686157
Well yeah, it should obviously be "Emotions are just the effect of a finely tuned series of chemical reactions on the conscious mind."

>>1686141
>You're saying this like the chemistry itself happens randomly.
What? Where did I say that? Chairs and books are both largely made of cellulose but act in very different ways. It would just be a mistake to speak of either as exclusively cellulose.

An isolated molecule of endorphin is not happiness. Happiness involves many chemicals acting in a complex system in specific ways.

>>1686197
A chair, made entirely out of wood, is just wood.
It's arranged to be a chair, but it is just wood in the end. It's arrangement does not change it's composition. I think our only point of discussion here is a different definition of "is"

>>1686213

A chair is not just wood.
Just like you are not just tissue or cells or molecules or atoms.

>>1686213
If it were arranged to be a shelf, would it still be a chair?

>>1686230
No, but the shelf would also be wood. Both are wood arranged to fit a purpose. one could be rearranged to be the other. If you wanted you could also leave your books on a chair and sit on a shelf or make them out of metal.
I know you wanna argue that what something is made of does not determine it's function or interpretation, but in biology it pretty much does.
>>1686227
I am though, I'm just a particularly complex interplay of those but if they were altered, I would be different

>>1686253

Are you seriously saying that the substance of some entity is its identity?

>>1686043
This

>>1686263
In certain cases, like neurochemistry, yes.
Chemical changes in your brain can completely reshape the way you act and think

>>1686253
>No,
In other words, to usefully speak about chairs, the organization of material is also important, not just composition.

>I know you wanna argue that what something is made of does not determine it's function or interpretation, but in biology it pretty much does.
Not at all. If you were to take a bunch of oxygen, hydrogen etc and put them in a big pile, you would not have a cell. The organization of the pieces is crucial for functioning. Or, for example, consider the positioning of opposable vs non-opposable thumbs and how far-reaching the consequences have been for that, while they are very similar in terms of composition.

I get the desire to counteract claims of conciousness and so on being mystical, but it's also important to not go too far in the other direction that you start making mistakes again. There is nothing spooky or magical about organization.

>>1685203
What does it matter?

>>1685203
I think that there is quite a bit more to it than just chemicals.

Fur instance:
>Be you
>Probably believe that all events are caused by a previous event, ie, my drink fell over because I dropped it
>If this is true, then all events can be simplified to being caused by a previous event (or set of events)
>Usually an event causes multiple events
>If all this is true, then all events can eventually be simplified to the evolution of life, then to the creation or formation of earth, then the formation of the sun, etc etc etc until the big bang

If that makes sense, then free will can't exist, right?
Your feelings and actions are just caused chemicals in your brain, right?
I've used my free will to come to the conclusion that free will does not exist.

File: Untitled 2.png (3KB, 190x189px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 190x189px

>>1686263
This
>O moves
>X moves
>spectator says "Wow X already lost"
>"Are you seriously saying that the substance of the board state is its identity?"
>"No, it's just some lines, 'X' and 'losing' are just useful words"

>>1686337
This for >>1686287 that

>>1686287
You act like furniture is a proper analogy for processes in the brain.
>Not at all. If you were to take a bunch of oxygen, hydrogen etc and put them in a big pile, you would not have a cell.
You would eventually, in theory.
We're not arguing about making a cell, a brain or a person. We're making an emotion, which is increasing and decreasing certain chemicals and some electricity.

Organisation is hugely important, but every bit of this organisation is the consequence of certain chemicals being in one place. There is no shaping taking place that is not just chemicals being in one place at one time because another set of chemicals were somewhere before

>>1686348
>There is no shaping taking place that is not just chemicals being in one place at one time because another set of chemicals were somewhere before

All the "chemicals" are 'just' atoms, all the "atoms" are 'just' subatomic particles and so on. The chemical scale is not more fundamental or accurate than others, you just prefer it because you think the explanation is more compelling there than at the atomic level or the level of the whole brain. That is an argument you have to make, instead of leaning on the fact that the chemical scale is smaller than the furniture scale.

>>1686372
it's more that furniture is shaped by outside entities to fit their purpose.

The physiological scale is actually slightly more appropriate when talking about brain function (also the scale I'm most comfortable with), but in our current understanding chemical signals are the determining factor in emotion

>>1686372
>>1686385
also the sub-atomic level would be pretty much impossible to discuss in this context.

>>1686348
>You would eventually, in theory.
Not necessarily. Abogenesis occurred due to specific interactions of specific chemicals. Phospholipids form the required rough sphere in liquid water, but they would not in hydrogen and oxygen gas and likely not in water vapour. You need all of it arranged in a specific way for it to act usefully.

>We're making an emotion, which is increasing and decreasing certain chemicals and some electricity.
And making synaptic/structural modifications etc. You could easily say that a computer is simply electricity and semiconductors, but that would not be a very useful way of actually talking about what they do and how they work beyond establishing a baseline.

>every bit of this organisation is the consequence of certain chemicals being in one place
Every bit of matter we interact with is the consequence of certain chemicals being in one place. But, again, despite all being primarily cellulose, a chair is not a shelf is not a book.

Yes OP. It's a pretty complex, dynamic system of chemicals but it is just chemicals like every other organ in the body.
Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to outrun physicality.

>>1685212
/thread

>>1686327
Okay so?
Your post has no meaning.

>>1685879
try reading a book

They're a combination of chemicals and electrical signals.

>>1685203
>Reply
And a chair is "Just Wood" but that doesn't mean tat it has not become more than whatever pile of 2x4s it came from. Likewise emotions are the product of a vast and complex series of actions and reactions that make them more than what they are in those test tubes. No supernatural belief is necessary to recognize this fact.

>>1685203
Dunno, still apathetic to life even when my brain got rekt from anemia up to now.

File: just a line.jpg (7KB, 514x165px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 514x165px

>>1685212

each of these is just a line. how can we differentiate them if they are all nothing more than the line that makes them up?

File: 1435916988064.png (68KB, 500x438px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x438px

>>1685203
>Are emotions just chemicals,
Literally everything is just chemicals
literally everything is just atoms really
Just because the smaller parts have nothing special to them doesn't mean together they don't form something meaningful
You can have a Natural universe devoid of "meaning" and still find your own.
I find comfort in this.

>>1685212
Nah man we're just atoms.
Get your facts straight.

Is the identity of a man what he is, or who he is?

>>1685203
What else is there supposed to be?