Nope. Physical reactions happen because we have had a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions in the brain are triggered by thought, light/sight. these send a pulse to whichever nerve ending. Emotion then is triggered from the pain.

Andy.

So you're saying that thought is completely removed from physical action which can be observed/explained?

If so then you are suggesting that the consciousness is a mystical element independant of the physical world, are you not?

Andrew - I find it a bit odd that you should be casting me as dogmatically anti-physicalist. I am producing an argument for my position, while you seem to be just repeating your position without offering any support for it. It seems to me that you are ignoring my argument against physicalism, and just repeating your belief in it. I would be much more interested in where you think my argument goes wrong.

If the scientists have established all the physical details of the brain state we call pain, but still there is the question of what it is like for Smith to be in pain, then they have left something out. They have left out the experiential quality of pain. The reason why I think they do leave that out is because by our own definition the physical world is the objective world, and Smith's experience of pain is subjective. But if they have left something out, after having captured all the physical details, then that something cannot be a physical detail.

By the way, I must clarify one point: You say that everything is caused by the brain states, and that is fine. All my argument purports to show is that the conscious experience itself goes beyond our concept of the physical domain, irrespective of how it is caused.

Why would I want to provide a justification for believing that nothing in the brain transcends the physical? I don't suspect that my computer works by magic or god makes my car run, even if I don't know exactly how either of them do work I do know that they are both obeying physical laws.

Just because the brain is orders of magnitude more complex doesn't inspire me to believe that it is somehow above the physical.

Your argument boils down to the brain being beyond the understanding of objective science because it allows subjective experiences, which strikes me as nonsense.

How can thought be physical? Not possible. For physical to happen, you require effort. Effort requires chemicals to send pulses to nerves. It is like the chicken and the egg. Which came first?
Indeed, the brain is mystical. We still are not sure what some parts of the brain does. Average human uses 13% of their brain Einstein used about 21%. If you are right handed, you use the left side.

Andy.

So you *are* suggesting that the process of operation of the brain is beyond the realms of physical science.

That viewpoint is the antithesis of science, because it provides a non-scientific answer and discourages any further investigation. Shoddy thinking.

Oh, and the stuff about humans only using 13% of their brains is rubbish.

There is no firm evidence that mental thought is connected with physical law. It is debated by scientists all the time with various thesis being written. The brain is not mechanical. It uses Neurons. Do they work outside the cycle of the physical law? This is the debate.
It also believed we use between 10-20 % of our brains. Again there are two school of thought here. To say it is rubbish, shows how little you actually think!
Just to believe your own theories, and not even consider others who have written here, like you have on the above posts, makes me think how cynical you are.

Andy.

There are not two schools of *scientific* thought on either of these matters.

I didn't say that the brain was mechanical, I said it was physical and worked within the laws of physical sciences, which it does. I don't think you'll find a serious scientist who believes otherwise, although there are obviously religious advantages to believing otherwise.

We do not use 10-20% of our brains. We use about 5% at at time, because not all areas of the brain are required all of the time and we do have some spare capacity in there, but it's pretty much all required. The only two schools of throught on this are the views expressed by, say, trained neurologists and those expressed by those who believe all of the crap they read on the Internet.

These aren't cynical views, just accurate ones.

Rubbish.
Then why are there thesis papers written about this? Non scientist do not write thesis on this subject!!!
Why is there a debate on the amount of brain power we use, as on a brain scan, all our brain is lit with no dark patches?
Come on, you cannot prove beyond doubt it comes under physical law.
What about the fourth dimension? Does that get included? We all make a decisions and conclusions on things by what we know, and we as humans still don't know it all. What happens if its all wrong And if all thing come under physical law, then explain the parculirarities that is gravity!

Andy.
But no doubt you will disagree like the rest of the following sheep.

My previous post addressed the issue of why everything is not lit up on a brain scan, because we don't use all of our brains all of the time.

The rest of your post is just gibberish - the forth dimension, gravity not being a physical law, "what happens if it's all wrong"? You want a nice wicca web-site or something, you do.

So, yes, I'm disagreeing ... just like the rest of the sheep. But Welformed would have predicted that.

Does understanding established science-fact make you a sheep? Politics is comparitively too much of opinion and vision than fact and proof.

(NB: no, you haven't dragged me in, I was reading anyway and was about to post on your side, but it's not terribly hard given some of the reasonsings above!)

Seeing as I can't be bothered with a big debate right now and with regard to brain-function, reality, consciousness and thought processes (for the latest scientific ideas) you'd do well to read last months Scientific American. I'll get the exact issue number later. There's a superb article on this between the two leading scientists on what makes consciousness both personal and private yet widescale and predictable - entirely physical (and therefore what would constitute subjectivitiy). At £2.20 it really is worth the read, Enforcer and Sumplug really need too...

Seeing that you have tunnel vision, and will not debate anything, i think i will leave this thread.
Just one thing. Gravity does not work properly to physical law. No one really knows why. And what if the fourth dimension is discovered? Einstein said it is there. Will it prove that us humans work outside the physical law?
And like the Church cannot prove that God exists, you cannot prove beyond doubt that we work totally under the physical laws. To dismiss it as gibberish shows your lack of thought.
Go on prove to us beyond doubt we do. If you cannot, then your case is flawed!!

Andy.

My, it's been a long time since we last laughed at movie review in this thread, hasn't it.

What do you mean by "gravity does not work properly to physical law"? To which physical law doesn't gravity work? Do you have reason to suspect that gravity is, somehow, a subjective mystical force rather than an objective physical one?

What I suspect you mean is that the exact physical workings of gravity are not yet understood, but that is far from saying they never will be, or even can be.

As for the forth dimension - what Einstein said was that space and time weren't seperate, but rather bound together in a 4-dimensional object called space-time, where time is not absolute, but is linked to the observer's movements in space. Why you even think that should have anything to say about humans being constrained to physical laws is beyond me.

Finally (dear God*, please let it be finally) why should I have to prove a ridiculous conjecture, i.e. that humans somehow operate outside of physical laws.

If I believed that invisible pixies lived on Neptune then it would fall upon me to prove that they did, not upon my detractors to prove that they did not.

As there is *absolutely no reason* to suspect that humans transcend physical laws it strikes me as pointless to jump through your hoops trying to prove that this is the case.

* If there was a god, which, of course, there isn't.

here
Read this. you might learn something.
So you cannot prove beyond doubt then?
Oh, and prove there is no God! You cannot. All you say is flawed. Go on admit it !!
Until you can prove beyond doubt there is a connection between mental thought and physical law, then i cannot debate with you.
Your reasoning is like looking at an empty jar and saying it is empty. Its not empty due to being full of Air!!
That's why its debatable, because it is not provable beyond doubt.

Andy.

Andy.

Maybe you should try reading what I'm posting. The link you posted says exactly what I just did - that the exact mechanisms of the working of gravity aren't yet known. It doesn't say that gravity is somehow mystical or magical.

The rest of your post is just a rant. I have no interest in proving that the world does not operate by magic. If you would like to believe it does then you go for it.

okaaaaaaaaay then,

interesting to see where this thread has ended up, after starting off in a fairly lighthearted manner.

Andrew.
As gravity does not work to the physical rules, then it blows your theory up that everything does. Proves that your views are flawed. If gravity can work outside physical laws, which it does, then why not the brain?

Andy.

At the risk of being insulting, are you stupid or what?

There is a difference between saying that the physical laws of gravity are not yet understood (which is the case) and saying that gravity operates outside of physical laws (which is what you're saying).

You have proved nothing, other than your inability to comprehend a simple article.

Electricity exists. Chemicals exist. Cells exist. Atoms and energy make up these things. The 4 universal forces of the universe and the laws of thermodynamics make atoms and energy possible. That is all your brain consists of and all of these are real physical entities. It's just the complexity of the connections between these cells, chemicals, eletrical impulses and the number of them, that allows you to think and become conscious.

Do you REALLY need someone to prove these basics to you?

Only idiots and religious fundamentalists think in absolute terms. It's the only way they can handle existence. This may be a barrier you will never be able to breach. Probably worth giving up right now...

Ok then.
Under physical law, to get something to be physical, it needs effort from something. What gives the physical ability of that something? Chicken and egg thing.

Andy.

Let me put it simply. For Physical law to be absolute, there has to be a beginning. But we have no beginning. So something is outside the physical law. If one thing is outside, there will be others. Simple.

Andy.

Yeah, um, goodnight and thanks for playing. If that's your best stab at a reasoned argument then I'm not wasting any more of my time.

Go on then Einstein, tell me were i am flawed. If you cannot, then goodnight sir.

Andy.

Go on then, just for old time's sake ...



Why? And a beginning of what - everything?



So are you here suggesting that the universe is infinitely old?



But this result is based on your previous 2 statements, both of which are absolutely patently nonsense.



1. You have not proved that one thing is outside
2. Even if you did, the existence of one thing does not imply more must exist
3. Even if it did that does not prove that all cases are the same.



Yes. Simple as in "simply gibberish".

You sound like you've read and failed to understand far too many popular science books.

Now can we please end it there?

Please don't lock this thread

The article I mentioned earlier that proof positive or negative of any/all of the above, it should be treated as essential reading. Worth the cover price in itself:- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=F65C0F4E-E7F2-99DF-383DC0B16998C011

As should these for the cover stories:- http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2621.html
and http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2619.html

Come back for a discussion once you've read them...

You see, Andrew, debating with me isn't as bad as you think at times....

I don't know what you're talking about, sorry. Please tell me what you mean by "physical law"?

Are you talking about the law of the conservation of energy, because that only refers to the persistence of total energy in a 'closed system' (the universe) which cannot change under any circumstance*. Remembering of course that matter = energy.

This means it cannot be changed by an inside force (making it impossible for a god to exist as part of this universe as he could not generate something from nothing without breaking this law and causing a paradox that would destroy all existence. In the face of overwhelming evidence, this law is accepted by the Christian Church btw) and therefore can also not be affected by an outside force either (i.e. if there is a god, he can only watch us but do nothing else) and if you like, interaction between a god and this universe would also upset that balance of existing energy should they come into contact.

* still being proven of course, but so far everything holds true.

Now I'm going to admit that I'm not too good at all this complicated stuff that Welformed and AndrewR are throwing about, although I do find it very interesting. I would imagine that in any kind of debate where I disagreed with them, I would be made to look like an imbecile. Luckily I agree with them



Even I can this this is bull. What is this physical law? Presuming it exists, and you are right, surely you should be able to answer your own question? I'm sure you understand how the human body creates energy, and it is this energy that is used to think. I see nothing remotely associated with the chicken and egg thing?

Do you mean we have to think to get energy, but we have to get energy to think? Even if this were true, which I doubt, when born our mother provides us with the essentials, energy etc, which starts the brain working, continuing the process.

I still don't think the physical law thing is right, but even if it were, thoughts can still be shown to be physical.

As a matter of interest, what do you believe thoughts are if not physical?