Philosophy Now Forum

There are many questions related to this. For example if we're not, then we can keep on evolving (into what is another question?)

If we are more than molecules, it's more doubtful we can keep on evolving. I'll let you work out the full implications to this.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:There are many questions related to this. For example if we're not, then we can keep on evolving (into what is another question?)

If we are more than molecules, it's more doubtful we can keep on evolving. I'll let you work out the full implications to this.

PhilX

To me we appear to be an extremely complex arrangement of molecules that appears intent on consuming (chemically rearranging to the benefit of something called consciousness) similarly arranged molecules, in a twisted bid to fairly closely 'clone' or 'copy' the originating arrangement of molecules.

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:There are many questions related to this. For example if we're not, then we can keep on evolving (into what is another question?)

If we are more than molecules, it's more doubtful we can keep on evolving. I'll let you work out the full implications to this.

PhilX

To me we appear to be an extremely complex arrangement of molecules that appears intent on consuming (chemically rearranging to the benefit of something called consciousness) similarly arranged molecules, in a twisted bid to fairly closely 'clone' or 'copy' the originating arrangement of molecules.

If I'm following you, you seem to be describing cannibalism.

Here's another particular example of something I was thinking about. Humans are often noted for being emotional. The love emotion seems to help in bringing about families. The other side of the coin is the hate emotion which would help keep families from forming or lead to their dissolution. It's been the history of mankind that population keeps growing which suggests that love overrules hate. Do you agree or disagree and do you have anything to add?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:To me we appear to be an extremely complex arrangement of molecules that appears intent on consuming (chemically rearranging to the benefit of something called consciousness) similarly arranged molecules, in a twisted bid to fairly closely 'clone' or 'copy' the originating arrangement of molecules.

If I'm following you, you seem to be describing cannibalism.

No. Unless you consider eating a piece of T-bone steak cannibalism.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Here's another particular example of something I was thinking about. Humans are often noted for being emotional. The love emotion seems to help in bringing about families. The other side of the coin is the hate emotion which would help keep families from forming or lead to their dissolution. It's been the history of mankind that population keeps growing which suggests that love overrules hate. Do you agree or disagree and do you have anything to add?
PhilX

I don't care - your opening thread title is interesting from a philosophical POV, if you want to debate the human social condition you should start another thread in another area than metaphysics. I find a more interesting tack the question of molecules and consciousness as i mentioned in my response, the fact that a pile of molecules provide the ability for an entity to actually sense - and yes this pile of molecules requires consuming other piles of molecules in order for its sensory ability to continue.

If the answer is yes, whether you're alive or dead, you're still just molecules.

It would be fair to say that we are molecules but not just molecules because we're also the emergent form/s that stem from the molecules' organisation.

Is the Earth just a rock or an active geological system?

Greta wrote:Is the Earth just a rock or an active geological system?

If we consider the Earth to be just a rock then we can acknowledge the ability to get blood out of a stone.

A person who is alive and the same person who has just dropped dead is exactly the same as far as chemistry is concerned.

What is the difference between the two then ?

And what is the difference between a person who is awake and alive and the same person who has fainted or even become temporarily unconscious ?

We can take an animal as an example too, it does not have to be a human being.

duszek wrote:A person who is alive and the same person who has just dropped dead is exactly the same as far as chemistry is concerned.

What is the difference between the two then ?

And what is the difference between a person who is awake and alive and the same person who has fainted or even become temporarily unconscious ?

We can take an animal as an example too, it does not have to be a human being.

Being alive is one type of 'ongoing' chemical reaction, and being dead results in another type of chemical reaction. A major difference in the two positions appears to be the rather permanent loss of consciousness.

So if specific chemical reactions take place people are conscious and therefore are more than the molecules they are composed of.

This is not rocket science. Life and consciousness are not a function of what the constituent molecules are but rather a function of what the constituent molecules are doing. This applies to all of physical reality, whether "living" or "non-living" because physical reality is a PROCESS.

Obvious Leo wrote:This is not rocket science. Life and consciousness are not a function of what the constituent molecules are but rather a function of what the constituent molecules are doing. This applies to all of physical reality, whether "living" or "non-living" because physical reality is a PROCESS.

So you are agreeing with my statement.

attofishpi wrote:

duszek wrote:A person who is alive and the same person who has just dropped dead is exactly the same as far as chemistry is concerned.

What is the difference between the two then ?

And what is the difference between a person who is awake and alive and the same person who has fainted or even become temporarily unconscious ?

We can take an animal as an example too, it does not have to be a human being.

Being alive is one type of 'ongoing' chemical reaction, and being dead results in another type of chemical reaction. A major difference in the two positions appears to be the rather permanent loss of consciousness.

The activity of the brain has more to do with electrical activity than chemical, though both play a part.
It's "physical", not just "material"

Keep splitting hairs and you might just end up with rabbits.