Forget religion for a moment and ask yourself this question.

[Bruce Wayne]

Wow it gotten to be a discussion thread after all. I hope it won't prevent the other to post therir answers.

Bruce,
Where did I make this claim? I listed some basic observations and asked a set of questions challenging you to show that there could be anything other than a physical reality.

In this sentence you reaffirm yor claim. You say there can be nothing but the physical reality. So you limit existence to physical or biological life. As for the challenge. You did not such a thing, you dismissed the question at the onset.

(off course ultimatley you did challenge me, since you contradicted what I said )

You’ve answered no questions and have not offered any credible support for even the possibility that a person could continue to exist in some form beyond the point where their body dies.

That is because I said at the beginning of the thread that I wanted no discussions here. Read the first sentence of the thread.

The definition of death is not dependent on what I say though. Webster makes it very clear as well as every dictionary that I consulted. I see no reason to question the definition.

I do. And I, again, use your argument. It is not right simply because everyone thinks it is.

You said –

”our natural knowledge does not come near claiming to ever be able to understand the brain's functioning.”

Once the confusing negative clauses are converted, this statement appears to say “we will never understand”. I’m not trying to divert anything just trying to interpret a confusing sentence.

It is confusing since you though that that explanation would be the easiest for you to counter. Before the part you highlighted, I said:

"our knowledge does not come near claiming..."

That does not mean that "We will never be able to do that".

It is common because we are in a religion forum and entirely appropriate to the subject material, i.e. gods and spirits etc, where there are no facts needed for rational arguments.

Rationality is more abused than well-used by nearly everyone. This is irrelevant in this thread, but rationality is not that great in my book. It is usefull for intersubjectivity. Beyond that it has it's severe limitations. I also think you should beware of saying what science cannot prove is not existant. As nic. cage said in city of the angels: Some things are true whether you believe in them or not..

But I have not said that, that is your statement. I used the dictionary definition that says that death is the end of life. The thrust of my argument was questioning the suggestion that there could be some form of immaterial spirit that could survive bodily death.

Maybe you are not fully honest, but I think it is rather the result of a mistake. The definition you gave says:

Webster - Death: 1 : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life.

So that is clearly not my statement but a quote from you. If you had said that "death is the end of life" it wouldn't have been something I would bother to object (btw, I think I could.)

If you think a soul/spirit might exist why not try to support that claim?

The first sentence of the thread. I wanted everyone to share whtout having to fear for a reprimand.

Also, I am very lazy and I don't care to convert people to my ideas unless pushed to or if I agree with the basic idea and an thus further develop it. I basically don't care very much for what others might think. In your case, you are someone that bluntly defied what I was going for. And even if I were to teach you my opinion, would it change your resolve to kill me and every other Muslim that wouldn't reject his faith as you stated elsewhere?

Agreed, but then it is only recently that people have realized the earth isn’t flat. If you want to argue that truth is determined by the length of time the idea is believed then you must conclude that indeed the earth is flat.

I agree too. But if all the scientists, brilliant minds, true rationality, science and more importantly the philosophers would agree that biological life is all there is. Does that mean that they are right. No.

As for the idea of flatness. I don't know. Maybe the ancients knew that the earth was oval too.

Aristotle’s idea of soul was based on complete ignorance of modern science and especially neuroscience, and certainly he had no knowledge of cell biology. Most of what Aristotle attributes to soul we now know is generated by the brain. In his ignorance of the brain he reasoned that what we now know as brain functions (e.g. thoughts and emotions) were somehow separate from the physical body and hence could survive physical death. We now know much more and no longer have any credible reason to suspect a separate immaterial soul.

hmm..You could have a point about Aristotle.

Kat

Peace be unto you.

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar was kidding..

:m:

Honestly, sometimes I think I shouldn't joke at all in this forum. I even go as far as to add a winking smiley and yet..

 

[Neildo]

Energy can never be created or destroyed..... Your energy will enjoy a new existance in some other form after you die, but not in the form of a biological matrix of patterned electrical activity. I will just, move on. - Halcyon

Gee, what does THAT sound like? Thanks.

- N

P.S. You seem to be confident in knowing that the energy that is released from our body won't ever form into some biological or other form.. please tell us how you know that one..

 

[Neildo]

Yes it does. We know very well what happens to the body after death.

No, we don't know what happens to the body after death. We know the person turns to rigamortis and is gone, but what happens once their brain shuts down? If something else happens once a person dies, they cannot relay any of that information to anyone to let us know. Just like a person who is gone of all senses, blind, mute, deaf, etc, they cannot tell someone what is going on inside their head because they have no way to communicate.

Really. Not as far off as you may think. Memories and experiences are neuronal paths, observable patterns of electrical activity. We know where they are, we know how to identify which ones do what. By trial and error you could eventually make a person, remember or experience anything you want by direct electrical stimulation to the neuronal pathways.

Are you sure? We may be able to see the activity going on in certain parts of a brain and even make them twitch or not feel something with a part of their brain cut, but ya won't be able to actually know what the person is thinking. Is there going to be some sort of brain signal transcoder to turn that brain activity into a visable display on a monitor as well as give out their emotion senses of the outcomes that the person may do in response to those thoughts? Heh, I doubt it.

As I said, we can do lots of things with whatever it may be, but there are just some things that we don't know yet people think we know it all in regards to what ever the subject may be. Yes, we know a person dies and they don't come back, but we don't know what happens once their brain shuts down because they can't relay anything back to us since all their physical senses are gone. But hey, as you said earlier, our energy will enjoy a new existance since our energy isn't able to be created or destroyed. Is that not part of the "we're all One with God" theory?

What we know or what you know?

What we know as a human race as a whole. We can see what happens when a person dies but we do not know what happens from their point of view. Nothing can produce the knowledge of an object but the object itself, and unfortunately once a body dies, they cannot relay anything to us since their physical senses are gone and that's our only way of currently interacting with one another. If something else goes on once a person dies, they don't have the ability to let us know.

- N

 

[wesmorris]

What do you expect after death?

It is irrational to have expectations of something after death, the same as it is irrational to believe in god. In some ways I do hope there is something of my consciousness after I die. I would like to always be aware I suppose. Sometimes though what we hope doesn't matter. IMO, in some regards it only matters that we hope, since lately I've been thining it's that hope that seeds our nobility. There's something epic, brutal and beautiful about the struggle for survival on the abstract plane. Bah I'm just rattling on. *shrug*

How do you think you will you experience death?

Assuming you mean the act rather than the condition, I would say I don't know and it doesn't do me a lot of good to dwell on it. I don't think it takes any practice.

 

[antifreeze]

Your energy will enjoy a new existance in some other form after you die, but not in the form of a biological matrix of patterned electrical activity.

what if you are eaten by wolves? our "energy" is merely chemical bonds. these can be broken through digestion and converted into ATP, which is then used by biological organisms to operate their cells, form peptide bonds in proteins and whatnot.

and in response to the question; what do i expect? nothingness.

to all those defending the afterlife perspective, does everything that lives possess a soul? and i will add a seemingly unrelated question; is a computer more than the sum of its parts? [please don't jump to conclusions about my meaning]

 

[Neildo]

what if you are eaten by wolves? our "energy" is merely chemical bonds. these can be broken through digestion and converted into ATP, which is then used by biological organisms to operate their cells, form peptide bonds in proteins and whatnot.

Heh, no wonder why Americans are so obese, we turn into what we eat.. cows!

to all those defending the afterlife perspective, does everything that lives possess a soul? and i will add a seemingly unrelated question; is a computer more than the sum of its parts? [please don't jump to conclusions about my meaning

Well it all depends on what defines as "soul". If it's merely energy then I say every animate object has a soul. Heck, everything in existance for that matter as that's what we're all made up of.. matter.. and that's energy, no? This is why we're all One with another. Humans are just organic animate objects that live and create through invention. Plants are organic animate objects that live and create through more organic ways.

We don't know what goes on in the minds (for lack of a better word) of a plant just as it doesn't of us. Just as Halycon said, we can make people do things by messing with their brain, but we still don't know what goes on in their head. I can make a plant do a certain thing making it feed on soil and such just as I can make a person run after a stack of $100 bills attached to a fishing pole. Just because we know what their action will be, we don't know what goes on their head.besides that.

And yeah I'd say robots have a soul too. But I shouldn't have even mentioned a plants brain as we're talking about a soul, I mainly just brought that up to show that brains don't equal a soul. So far a soul seems to be energy and every animate object has energy to make it live, whether it's a brainwashed robot or person, or a free-willed person (or brainwashed by genes for those that don't believe in free-will).

- N

P.S. Sorry again I left a buncha stuff out I was gonna mention earlier.. I lost my train of thought cause I wrote this in various pieces since I kept going in and out for fireworks.

 

[antifreeze]

okay, but energy is part of the material world. the afterlife is the soul's realm, and the thing about energy is; you can't take it with you.

 

[Neildo]

okay, but energy is part of the material world. the afterlife is the soul's realm, and the thing about energy is; you can't take it with you.

That depends if there is a "soul's realm" as in some other plane of existance. If our soul is merely energy, the universe or even Earth can still be our Heaven or spiritual plane. I can't speak much for energy, molucules, atoms and the like, but I doubt they have eyes so they wouldn't see or experience Earth or the universe as we biologically formed humans do so it would be a completely new realm for them even though it's all the same place.

Just as a living plant or a blind, deaf, and mute person with no sense of taste of touch, while they still exist in this realm, it's basically a whole nother realm for them because they don't see or experience it as we do. Again, that's assuming they don't all experience it as we do because they have no way to relay their experiences to us in a way we understand, much-like energy, a soul, or a dead person can't. And that's the reason why it's all unknown territory because we have no info coming to us from them. So until then, it's all speculative philosophy.

- N

 

[Jenyar]

Life passes, so does beauty, so does wealth,
time passes all that was -
since all things pass to death,
must death not also pass?

 

[SnakeLord]

Now the thing I find the most amusing is for those that say life is the complete end, why do they bother to even live life if it doesn't matter?

I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. Of course life matters- because we're only here once and then *wham* we're blotted out of existence, never to return. Your entire statement is more suited to the reverse side, (heaven believers), who are soon to be going on to a joyous, evil free existence in the clouds. Tell me.. why don't you just kill yourself now and save the long wait until your next existence..

And why do they fear death?

Umm.. for those that do, it's because we're only here once and death is final. We realise there isn't a my life part II, my life part III, and so on - and as such this life is of utmost importance of which death serves only to end it all.

Why do you care if the world ends? What consequences do you have to deal with? It's not as if you're going to go to Hell or be reincarnated to live in the crappy world that you helped create due to giving up

We have a life yes? We have loved ones, happiness, pleasure and so on? So why in the name of Zeus's butthole would we want it all to end, especially considering that when it does end - it ends for good?

Go ahead and come up with any excuse you want, but deep down inside everyone knows and believes the same thing or else you wouldn't be here now

Give it some time and you'll realise the serious error in this statement. If anything, we appreciate life more than you guys, because this is the only one we have.

Prove me wrong and disappear

Consider yourself proved wrong.

 

[antifreeze]

must death not also pass?

yes. death occurs only once, for [arguably] a single instant. the important part of that, uh, poem? is; "life passes." because death happens only once [usually] whilst the lifelessness following death last indefinitely.

 

[Halcyon]

P.S. You seem to be confident in knowing that the energy that is released from our body won't ever form into some biological or other form.. please tell us how you know that one..

Entropy. You know, the laws of thermodynamics. One of the first things anybody studying the body of scientific kowledge should be aware of. That's how I know that one. wink.

You seem to think I said that the energy released from your body won't in some how incorporate itself into another living being. I said no such thing. In fact, I'm positive that it will. But in order for YOU to be incorporated, you'd need a full scale re-formating of the brain of whatever you're diving into, which a few stray particles of energy will NOT be doing.

 

[antifreeze]

But in order for YOU to be incorporated, you'd need a full scale re-formating of the brain of whatever you're diving into, which a few stray particles of energy will NOT be doing.

but it would seem "you" is referring to a soul-like entity. and as a distinction is made between "you" and "energy," i would argue the soul is not energy.

this response isn't directed at you in particular halcyon, but i thank you for your observation.

 

[Halcyon]

No, we don't know what happens to the body after death. We know the person turns to rigamortis and is gone, but what happens once their brain shuts down?

Who tought you biology? There are various stages of decomposition, depending on whether or not someone shoved a tube full of preservative in you. That's what happens to your body.

If something else happens once a person dies, they cannot relay any of that information to anyone to let us know. Just like a person who is gone of all senses, blind, mute, deaf, etc, they cannot tell someone what is going on inside their head because they have no way to communicate.

If that was where you were going with the whole "What happens to your body," thing, you should have chosen your words a little better. If you want to know what happens to a person's mind after bodily death then say that. The argument centered on the function of bodily death because you mentioned not knowing what happened to the body after death. As for what happens to your mind after bodily death, I already went over that.

Are you sure? We may be able to see the activity going on in certain parts of a brain and even make them twitch or not feel something with a part of their brain cut, but ya won't be able to actually know what the person is thinking.

First off, yes, I'm sure. The evidence supports this. This is common knowledge. Yes, you can know what someone is thinking, because the participants tell the experimenters exactly that.

Is there going to be some sort of brain signal transcoder to turn that brain ctivity into a visable display on a monitor as well as give out their emotion senses of the outcomes that the person may do in response to those thoughts? Heh, I doubt it.

You'd be naive to do so. We can do the opposite; input signals into a brain in order for a person to see, feel, experience something. We can make an atheist feel the presence of God. Remember when Kat said we could connect video camera to a person's visual cortex and allow them to see? She wasn't bluffing. I think it's highly feasible to pull information out someday since we already know how to put it in. Especially since all of these things are determined by PHYSICAL OBSERVABLE PROCESSES. We can point to a neuron, stimulate it to find out what part of the person's mind that neuron correlates to, and map it. It's nowhere near our capabilities to map an entire brain right now, and we still don't know nearly enough of about it, but we do know that your mind is pretty much nothing more than some electrons and neurotransmitters playing hop-scotch along your neurons. As for being able to tell how a person will respond and react to certain stimulus, this is also entirely possible. Some good books for you to read would be Dan Dennet's "Consciousness Explained," and Rita Carter's "Mapping The Mind."

As I said, we can do lots of things with whatever it may be, but there are just some things that we don't know yet people think we know it all in regards to what ever the subject may be.

No offense intended, but perhaps you should consider how sthat statement may apply to you as well.

Yes, we know a person dies and they don't come back, but we don't know what happens once their brain shuts down because they can't relay anything back to us since all their physical senses are gone.

Like was said before, the mind is a physical process, equivalent to the pattenrs of neurons in your brain. Once your brain ceases to function, the mind ceases to function.

If something else goes on once a person dies, they don't have the ability to let us know.

Because they're dead.

 

[Halcyon]

but it would seem "you" is referring to a soul-like entity. and as a distinction is made between "you" and "energy," i would argue the soul is not energy.

this response isn't directed at you in particular halcyon, but i thank you for your observation.

When I say "You," I mean the neuronal pattern in your brain that creates your mind. It functions thanks to the presence of energy; electrons hopping here and there, but "You," are still nothing more than the neurons in your brain. Heh.

 

[Halcyon]

as well as give out their emotion senses of the outcomes that the person may do in response to those thoughts? Heh, I doubt it. - N

The illusion of free will....It is very possible to determine a person's reaction to specific stimuli.

Refering you to a previous thread in this forum; http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34810&page=5&pp=20

Specifically the exchange between PM Thorne and I, starting with this post;

Free will is impossible.
Whatever your genome didn't determine about the makeup of your personality, your learning filled in.
So every decision you make is based on the what you've learned, the state of synaptic connections in your brain, and your genetics.

If I say the word "orange," whatever association you draw up to the word depends on information you've previously acquired and how your brain was wired to process it.

If it could ever be possible to map and trace all the synaptic routes in your brain along with what information they processed, then it would simply be a matter of computation to determine how input is received, processed, stored, recalled, and influences action. Every thought has a physical, biological counterpart, so the laws of physics apply; for every action an opposite and equal reaction. You are never acting on a whim, you are reacting to input based on predetermined processes. Thoughts don't randomly pop into your head, they're there because there was a stimulus, conscious or unconscious.

 

[antifreeze]

but "You," are still nothing more than the neurons in your brain.

yeah, consciousness, neurons, i know. that's why i said "soul-like."

 

[Neildo]

No, we don't know what happens to the body after death. We know the person turns to rigamortis and is gone, but what happens once their brain shuts down? - me

Who tought you biology? There are various stages of decomposition, depending on whether or not someone shoved a tube full of preservative in you. That's what happens to your body. - Halcyon

Uh, I know how a body dies and the various stages of decomposition. That is not the point of my discussion as you can see by it being one sentence. I wanted to cut to the chase and quickly jump to the part I wanna talk about. I guess I could have said "we know about the stages of a physical death and decomposition but not if anything else more happens from their end besides their mind blanking out" but that was written in haste as this sorta is too.

If that was where you were going with the whole "What happens to your body," thing, you should have chosen your words a little better. If you want to know what happens to a person's mind after bodily death then say that. The argument centered on the function of bodily death because you mentioned not knowing what happened to the body after death. As for what happens to your mind after bodily death, I already went over that.

Yeah, I should have. I don't know how to describe it other than just say "soul" and I don't like using that word as it implies spiritualness and heaven and all that is something I do not believe in, in the sense that it's some special place far far away. I'm mainly concerned with the tinest of atoms, molucles, particles, energy, etc that continues on once our physical form dies. That is a part of us and is the basics in which makes up everything, which is why I say we're all One with another. Our human bodies are just our tiny atoms taking a break and having fun for a hundred years, for a lack of a better phrase. And once we die, they go back to work floating around in "heaven" -- which to me, is just the earth and universe that is already here, it just seems like a new plane of existance because the universe is being lived as tiny atoms and not a physical form -- trying to create new forms, whatever it may be, and all the other things our tiny molucles would do.

Are you sure? We may be able to see the activity going on in certain parts of a brain and even make them twitch or not feel something with a part of their brain cut, but ya won't be able to actually know what the person is thinking. - N

First off, yes, I'm sure. The evidence supports this. This is common knowledge. Yes, you can know what someone is thinking, because the participants tell the experimenters exactly that.

Heh, well obviously we can know why having the participant TELL us. But anything they tell us, it's something we're MAKING them think due to tweaking with them so we know the answer before hand. Without us making them think what we want them to think through manipulation, is there a way for us to know what the person is thinking without them telling us? If we present a problem to the person, are we able to conjure up the millions of possible outcomes the person may be thinking of? Nope. We can only know by having the answer before hand and forcing the person to think what we want them to think, but we can't do so otherwise.

You'd be naive to do so. We can do the opposite; input signals into a brain in order for a person to see, feel, experience something. We can make an atheist feel the presence of God. Remember when Kat said we could connect video camera to a person's visual cortex and allow them to see? She wasn't bluffing. I think it's highly feasible to pull information out someday since we already know how to put it in. Especially since all of these things are determined by PHYSICAL OBSERVABLE PROCESSES. We can point to a neuron, stimulate it to find out what part of the person's mind that neuron correlates to, and map it. It's nowhere near our capabilities to map an entire brain right now, and we still don't know nearly enough of about it, but we do know that your mind is pretty much nothing more than some electrons and neurotransmitters playing hop-scotch along your neurons. As for being able to tell how a person will respond and react to certain stimulus, this is also entirely possible. Some good books for you to read would be Dan Dennet's "Consciousness Explained," and Rita Carter's "Mapping The Mind."

As you said, "we can do the opposite". Doing the opposite is not what I'm asking. If I want someone to bake me a cake, I don't care if they are able to do the opposite and eat the cake. I know we can MAKE people see and do things, but can we see and feel all that from their perspective. Yes, I know I can make a person feel pain by pinching them, but do I know how much pain they feel from their end? People have various tolerances for pain. Does an exact same pinch feel the same for one person as another?

As I said, we can do lots of things with whatever it may be, but there are just some things that we don't know yet people think we know it all in regards to what ever the subject may be. - me

No offense intended, but perhaps you should consider how sthat statement may apply to you as well. - Halcyon

Um, I do. Where have I shown that I'm exempt from that? I do not use absolutes, I keep an open mind. When I said that, I refer to people who say things on the lines of "because we know how a physical body dies and what we can see from our end, it means we know everything about death" so they go and say "nothing else happens after death, the mind just blacks out and there's no sort of afterlife" and that's just untrue. Because we may know a lot about something doesn't mean we know it all and that scenario is something we cannot currently test yet people are making absolutes saying nothing else happens after death. Yes, we can see what happens on OUR end to a person when they dies, but that's it. We cannot see what happens when a person dies on THEIR end.

Again, nobody can produce the knowledge of an object but the object itself. But since all the physical senses are gone when a person dies, and since physical senses are the only means in which humans have to communicate with one another, if something else happens after death, that dead body cannot relay that information to us yet we have people using absolutes claming that nothing else happens after death. We have no way to communicate with that energy that leaves their body and goes off elsewhere because it's a whole other form compared to us, even though it makes us up.

Oh, and when I said I doubt we'll be able to ever read a mind from the victim's perspective, I should have said I doubt anytime in the near future. I'm one that believes anything is possible, it's just that we don't yet know how to do whatever it may be. But that all ties into what I'm saying about us not being able to prove or disprove there being anything more after death. Until we actually are able to see and experience things from another person's perspective, and not just see it from our ends, ONLY THEN will we even come close to being able to prove or disprove there being anything more after death. This is why I'm arguing against people using absolutes about things we possibly cannot know right now. Go ahead and doubt, just don't deny it as fact.

Yes, we know a person dies and they don't come back, but we don't know what happens once their brain shuts down because they can't relay anything back to us since all their physical senses are gone. - me

Like was said before, the mind is a physical process, equivalent to the pattenrs of neurons in your brain. Once your brain ceases to function, the mind ceases to function. - Halcyon

Do you even realize what I'm talking about? We're talking about souls, no? Yes, I know when our brain ceases to function, our mind ceases to function. I'm not stupid ya know. Anything that deals with a physical body does not apply to the idea of a soul. Nor am I saying a soul is some ghost that is able to do humanly-form things or anything like that.

The discussion here is about souls and how we're no longer here once we die and that's untrue. When we die, we're still here, just our physical body is no longer animate. As you said earlier:

"Your energy will enjoy a new existance in some other form after you die, but not in the form of a biological matrix of patterned electrical activity. I will just, move on."

Is that not what people consider a soul? As for what happens with that old energy, you saying it will no longer be in the form of a biological matrix of patterned electrical activity, you have no idea. That is using an absolute about something we have no way of currently knowing. You don't know if that old energy and molucles won't ever bump with other energy and molucles to form and evolve into a new form much how all life was first created. You don't know if we'll once again be in a new form in a billion years which would then be considered reincarnation.

If something else goes on once a person dies, they don't have the ability to let us know. - N

Because they're dead. - Halcyon

Well obviously. But if they're dead, then how will we ever know if something more happens after death without their testimony? We have no way to prove or disprove anything so the ONLY thing we can say for certain is "we don't know". People can go ahead and doubt and say it's highly unlikely, but can't say for certain if something more does or does not happen after death.

- N

 

[Neildo]

Free will is impossible.
Whatever your genome didn't determine about the makeup of your personality, your learning filled in.
So every decision you make is based on the what you've learned, the state of synaptic connections in your brain, and your genetics.

I disagree in that free will is impossible. I agree with all of what you say after it though, but that only applies to when using subconcious logic where your mind naturally takes over. However, to making decisions overall, it's all just probability. One uses what they've learned, experienced, etc, to make the most probable descision, but it still does not account for all of the irrational decisions people make. Other "natural animal instincts" take over and battle with logic. You know the thrill that people always do, as crazy as it may be? While a person 95% of the time may do the most logical thing, why do some do the opposite of that?

One example I like to use is the time I jumped off a bridge. It's not the act that is weird, but the timing I decided to do so. I was riding my bike towards the beach to pick up some stuff from a small market, on the way I have to cross a 60 foot bridge arcing over the harbor. Out of the blue once I get to the top/middle of the bridge, I decide to just get off my bike and jump off the bridge and into the water. Now why the hell would I do such a thing? That is so irrational for the moment of my going to the store and picking that time to just "for the hell of it" jump off the bridge. It's those "just for the hell of it" irrational moments that point towards there being a free will, EVEN if 95% of the time one may make the most logical choice in any given situation. In that moment, I should have just continued crossing the bridge, bought the items I needed from the store, and rode back home.

And it's the same for the urge of when people just give up. When one gives up and their logical conciousness is no longer in control, they can do all sorts of crazy stuff. Why does one choose to go to the extreme and bomb an abortion center? Why does one shoot up a room full of co-workers? Why does a mother dump her baby in a dumpster rather than give it up for adoption? There's just all sorts of "for the hell of it", "for the thrill", or "just giving up" that fills up the other probability slots, even if they may be outnumbered by the most logical and probable choice. If our other natural instincts battle our logical mind to cause various outcomes of one to choose, why are there even multiple choices in the first place? Why do different instincts battle with one another at all? Wouldn't one mind-set be controlling the mind the whole time if there were no free will?

If I say the word "orange," whatever association you draw up to the word depends on information you've previously acquired and how your brain was wired to process it.

Yes, you know WHY one will do what they do, but you don't know what they'll do. You know they will draw up an image when the word orange is said, but you don't know what image they will choose. There isn't yet a way to tap into the brain storage area and be able to process various images as a person does in their mind. That's my point in the main discussion. Until we have a way to be in another person's body, we won't know what goes on. We can make them think a certain thing by manipulating them, we know how their thoughts are computated in their mind, but we can't process it ourselves.

You are never acting on a whim, you are reacting to input based on predetermined processes.

La de da, I'm bored. Hmm, should I watch TV, but which channel? Play a video game, but which one? Listen to music, but which songs? What chooses me to play Grand Theft Auto: VC on my PS2 compared to UFO:Aftermath or Enemy Territory online? Hmm, I think I'll go play on the PS2 but first let me get a glass of water. La de da, I'm walking to the kitchen and all of a sudden I snap to attention and say "hmm, I think I'll go clean that smudge I left on the bathroom counter" but then "eh, nevermind, I'll go do that later" but then decided to go clean off my stereo with some lemon spray. Now why the heck did I just go clean off my stereo? Is it because I remembered to do something I should have? If so, then why did I just pass on cleaning off a smudge on a counter?

No whims? I don't know about you, but I'd say there's some randomness involved. I'd say around 85% is logical, 15% is randomness with 1% of that randomness being irrational. And bump up the randomness when one is in a "I don't care" or other "giving in" type mood. Let's roll the dice and see what my outcome will be for the mission I decide to choose for Grand Theft Auto. Hmm, the Haitians, Cortez, Cuban, or should I just randomly kill some people? What logic would choose which choice? I think I'll kill some random people, then do a Cortez mission, and then a Haitian one, then a Cuban one. But why that order? And why did I just quit playing after killing people and then doing the Cortez mission?

- N