A soul -- or something else -- or nothing at all?

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 55
Topic's author
#1
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
The brain is just a bunch of atoms moving around. But the same is true of any object. Humans feel like one being, we "are" one being. Yet we exchange our atoms all of the time. If our atoms just follow the laws of physics, we are nothing but a pattern in an endless universe. The world would make more scientific sense if only our physical bodies existed. Yet the exists something we call "I" that clearly experiences reality. I want to share my questions in search of productive discussion.


What is "I"? What experiences reality? 

Please DON'T be angry if your view was misrepresented, I am only asking questions. 



The supernatural "I"
  • Does this thing "soul" exist? Which mechanics drive it and how would it be detectable?
  • How does this "I" function, how does it connect to a brain as opposed to a rock?
  • If this thing has structure, how is it any different from a physical "I"?

The physical "I"
  • Is this "I" merely a product of atoms moving around?
  • Do all atoms moving around create some form of "I", or does this only occur in our brains?
  • How does this happen? New physical dimensions, quantum mechanics, maybe something else?


The nonexistent "I"
  • If "I" doesn't exist, then why do I experience this thought process?
  • If "I" doesn't exist, then a human is no better than a rock. How can one still support morality?
  • What substitutes "I" in terms of function?


These questions sure are thought-provoking. If anyone has an opinion, please explain to me what "I" is and how you answer these questions regarding its nature.




Topic's author
#2
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have said that "I" is just an emergent feature of biology. I think you might be interested in this topic.
#3
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
"I" is simply a byproduct of physical neurological connections - it is - as you said- an emergent biological-though neurological would be more accurate here- that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Topic's author
#4
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Byproducts are remnants of chemical reactions or the remaining materials left after the formation of new objects. "I" can't be a byproduct. I know that the brain is physical. However, the fancy words of biology and neurology basically mean chemistry. I guess that the brain stores information and uses that information to optimally control our bodies. But the experience itself can't be a "byproduct". The byproducts of the brain are molecules, heat, and various forms of energy. 

Intelligent behaviour is an emergent feature of our brain. But the intelligence can be broken down into simple neurological reactions in our brain. Nothing can't emerge into something. Any emergent feature is only emerging because its core function exists on lower levels. 

What feature of atoms or neurons is emerging to create something + byproduct "I"?


#5
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
How would you know that nothing can't be something? Do you have an example of nothing? Have you studied its properties? Furthermore, you can have new reactions from chemical reaction - that is quite literally how chemical reactions work - sodium and chlorine (yes the deadly atom) are chemically bonded to make table salt - totally harmless. You are simply illiterate when it comes to chemistry, because new things emerging from complex reactions is quite literally how all chemistry works.
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Nothing can't emerge into something. 
It actually must be able to because God did so in your reality and reality itself did so in the atheist's reality.

Also, God makes things emerge from nothingness into existance in your theory.
#7
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Was there ever really nothingness? What is that exactly? In Norse myth even the yawning void Ginnungagap at least contained the element to form worlds. Most creation myths imply an order from chaos. Is the chaos nothingness or random somethingness. 
Topic's author
#8
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge

You are simply illiterate when it comes to chemistry, because new things emerging from complex reactions is quite literally how all chemistry works.
I am quite literate with regards to chemistry, and science. Your argument that sodium and chloride form something new is only valid if you look away from the fact that the properties in sodium chloride were already present in their parts. Elements are actually nothing but variations of atoms, with a different number of protons, neutrons and electrons. The "new" properties we observe in structures like molecules and salts are nothing but large scale effects of the same old electromagnetic forces and energy.


Do you have an example of nothing? Have you studied its properties?
Excellent rhetoric.

No, I don't have an example of nothing. The definition of nothing is the total absence of something -- which means nothing has no properties and can have no effect on anything. This in turn proves beyond reasonable doubt that IF what we call "nothing" can have an effect on anything, THEN it can no longer be called "nothing". Following this line of reasoning, there is not the slightest logical possibility of nothing causing anything. Thus, nothing can't be the cause of "I".


you can have new reactions from chemical reaction
My argument wasn't that chemical reactions can't create new chemicals. My argument was that no property can emerge from parts that lack said property. For example, crystals emerge from atoms like sodium and chloride. The properties of crystals like structure, mass and temperatures are all present in the individual atoms. The "new" properties are only visible from a distance, they are caused by the complexity of the object, not a creation of new properties. If you zoom into the crystal, you will see that the same interactions between elementary particles take place. It is only the complexity of the object that creates the appearance of new properties.


Neither the sodium chloride nor the brain inhibits a property not inhibited to a lesser extent in their individual parts. Change my mind.
#9
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
The "new" properties we observe in structures like molecules and salts are nothing but large scale effects of the same old electromagnetic forces and energy.
Evidently not - there is no such thing as electromagnetic forces - magnetic forces - yes - magnetic forces that are a cause of electricity - yes - electric forces that are similar to magnetic energy - also yes - electromagnetic energy? No. Magnetic fields are the results of valence electrons orbiting in the same direction and only filling in half of the energy level - and electricity can simulate this effect on a larger scale - there is no such thing as "electromagnetic forces" - furthermore - you are making a fallacy of composition - where you assume that that, because the whole or sum of parts has a property, the separate pieces of such, must also have that property, which is false. As I advised, study your fallacies. 


 IF what we call "nothing" can have an effect on anything, THEN it can no longer be called "nothing".
It's hilarious how you haven't realized that - applying that line of reasoning to nothing is something - therefore the nothing you are referring to is not anything - therefore you are still not actually referring to nothing. Nothing has no effects, no logic, nothing - that is what nothing is - the absence of everything - to try to arbitrarily assign properties to it such as having not being able to affect other things is to strip of it of being nothing - its a regress.


My argument was that no property can emerge from parts that lack said property.
You are patently false then - there is a new property in table salt - its harmlessness - neither sodium nor chlorine is such in their raw forms. You seem to need a different example - take all of the best football players - these are the best of the best, they are excellent players - and put them on a team and it is entirely possible that they suck - they have a new property of not being able to play in a team.

#10
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
"Neither the sodium chloride nor the brain inhibits a property not inhibited to a lesser extent in their individual parts. Change my mind."
You are simply making a fallacy, and as you are the one to make the assertion, you are the one to demonstrate that. If you wanna make that argument, then I could simply say that the lesser extent of memory is an electron impulse, the patterns of that impulse which are interpreted by complex chemical signals is what gives us our "Minds".
#11
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Benjamin
What is interesting is that although they are quite small, mosquitoes do have brains. This organ is simple compared to a human brain but is enough to help mosquitoes see, move, taste, and detect scents or heat. Through behavioral experiments and real-time recording of the female mosquito brain, a team of scientists, led by researchers at the University of Washington, has discovered how the mosquito brain integrates signals from two of its sensory systems — visual and olfactory — to identify, track and hone in on a potential host for her next blood meal.
Their findings, published July 18 in the journal Current Biology, indicate that, when the mosquito’s olfactory system detects certain chemical cues, they trigger changes in the mosquito brain that initiate a behavioral response: The mosquito begins to use her visual system to scan her surroundings for specific types of shapes and fly toward them, presumably associating those shapes with potential hosts.
Topic's author
#12
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
 there is no such thing as "electromagnetic forces"
OBJECTION: There is at least two. The electric force and the magnetic force. These all stem from one force, the electromagnetic force. "The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces." [energyeducation]. Electromagnetic energy? I didn't say that. I said "electromagnetic forces and energy" -- I said energy, not electromagnetic energy.


you are making a fallacy of composition
You can't treat my conclusion as a premise in order to call my argument a fallacy.



It's hilarious how you haven't realized that - applying that line of reasoning to nothing is something
It's hilarious how you keep accusing me of committing fallacies, even where I don't. Applying a line of reasoning does nothing to change the subject. Therefore, applying a line of reasoning to nothing is NOT self-defeating.


Nothing has no effects, no logic, nothing - that is what nothing is - the absence of everything -
Nothing is referring to NO-THING. If you refer to a thing able to cause or initialize any effect, you are not referring to nothing, but something. 

Thus, nothing still can't cause anything. Which means, nothing still can't cause "I" to come from "non-I".


to try to arbitrarily assign properties to it such as having not being able to affect other things is to strip of it of being nothing - its a regress.
OBJECTION: This line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. You are basically saying: "the absence of properties is itself a property". This statement is logically contradictory. 


Nothing is the absence of something. Only something can have an effect on something. Thus, nothing can't affect something.
Topic's author
#13
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
there is a new property in table salt - its harmlessness
New property? Aren't the very quarks it consist of harmless? 

Harmlessness? Not if travelling at Mach 3. The situation in which chemicals are dangerous vary, but all have situations in which they are harmful.

Harmlessness? Isn't that the absence of a property?


they have a new property of not being able to play in a team.
Again, you describe a lack of property, not a new property. Furthermore, a single-player also has the property of not being able to play as a team. 

Your usage of the word property is missing the point. All "properties" you describe are actually just the behaviours in different situations of the same properties of matter. Salt is not assigned a new property, it's just that the existing properties react differently in different situations. Physicists can break down every property of objects and show that every single one of them is just a new expression of already existing physical properties in their smaller parts. (I recommend you watch PBS Space-Time or Scienceclick English)



You are simply making a fallacy, and as you are the one to make the assertion, you are the one to demonstrate that.
This is not a fallacy, but a physical reality. Demonstrating anything with regards to "everything" is not possible. However, I can prove it with regards to all of your examples.



the lesser extent of memory is an electron impulse
The lesser extent of which is the movement of molecules due to osmotic pressure, which only matters because of the electromagnetic force carried by photons.


the patterns of that impulse which are interpreted by complex chemical signals is what gives us our "Minds".
If that was true, then a smaller extent of "mind" exists in the atoms it consists of.

Other things might experience reality similar to a mind, just to a lesser extent.

That is the inevitable conclusion to your argument.

#14
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
It then goes on to explain why such a term is reductive because:
"also called the Lorentz force, explains how both moving and stationary charged particles interact. It's called the electromagnetic force because it includes the formerly distinct electric force and the magnetic force; magnetic forces and electric forces are really the same fundamental force"
Which is exactly as I said - to call it "the electromagnetic force" is redundant. Again - stop your cherry-picking. Furthermore, you have yet to actually prove that this somehow makes it impossible for chemicals to make a new thing - you do realize both chlorine and sodium are non-ferromagnetic right? Unless you believe salt is made by turning them into electromagnetics you have no point here - only a red herring. Now - salt and chlorine do react because of electrostatic reactions - now because of Lorentz reactions - but that still does not mean anything - because a new property emerged from the combining of two things, the mere fact that an electrostatic reaction is what induced that reaction means nothing regarding the new property - do you think electrostatic reactions are inherently harmless? The more you try to sound like you know what your talking about, the more I get that you are googling things in order to support the conclusion you already came to.

Next up - no - you need to understand how syllogisms work - whenever you are determining if your syllogism is valid - each premise has to follow one another logically - and the conclusion is exactly the same - in order for your argument to be a sequitur - the information you provided must deductively follow to your conclusion. But your conclusion - does not follow any information you provided. That is a non-sequitur - specifically because of the fallacy of composition - of course you apply fallacies to conclusions - that is one of the only areas you really look for when determining the validity of a syllogism- but you didn't create a syllogism - the part we were talking about is effectively your premise. 

Um... yes - the "subject" as you call it - now has a property that means that the subject is fundamentally not nothing - you haven't actually cited the fallacy I made, nor explained why it is a fallacy, note that whenever I said you were making a fallacy of composition I precisely explained what it was, and how you were making it - you simply try to handwave it away but this all points to me that you a fundamental misunderstanding of logical fallacies (which makes sense, this is why I told you to go look them up) -again nothing is the absence of everything but to assign a property is to make that nothing a thing. You can not study nothing therefore to make any conclusions regarding its nature to be fundamentally flawed. 

No - again - you are wrong - to make something retroactively negatively have properties is indeed a property - but you've actually failed to identify what I was talking about "the absence of all properties" is not what I was talking about, you said that nothing cannot have an effect on anything - but to have that property or "quality that something has" is to make it not nothing. Again - you cannot come to any conclusions regarding nothing's nature - because it operates under laws which we cannot observe - there is no nothing in our universe - you are simply making assertions that are flawed in the first place. 

Finally, yes, other things do have minds - so what? Furthermore - the fact that laws and processes occur which lead us to a new reagent does not mean that it was "inherently there" it was introduced in the reaction - and furthermore it is a new property, that is to say a lack of a property which they both had - the new reagent is different in that it no longer possesses a property they both had - it is new - and the quality of such a thing - being harmless - is a property yes. You don't seem to realize that a thing not doing something is a property unto itself. To be unmalleable - or to possess the quality of not being malleable. 

For you to say it is "not a fallacy" is you being ignorant - you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Go ahead - look up a fallacy of composition.



#15
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,997
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
The physical "I"
  • Is this "I" merely a product of atoms moving around? 
  • Do all atoms moving around create some form of "I", or does this only occur in our brains? 
  • How does this happen? New physical dimensions, quantum mechanics, maybe something else?
“I” is a relative term/concept to distinguish oneself from another. It emerges from self-identity. 

How’s that?
Topic's author
#16
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
“I” is a relative term/concept to distinguish oneself from another. It emerges from self-identity. 
You define "I" as "oneself as opposed to another". This is circular reasoning. "I" and myself is the same thing, you can't define one based on the other in this case. Furthermore, calling "I" only a concept is an understatement. By definition, our concepts don't exist unless we exist. Therefore, "I" made concepts, and is not a product of them. If "I" don't exist independently of concepts then concepts can't exist.
Topic's author
#17
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge

you cannot come to any conclusions regarding nothing's nature - because it operates under laws which we cannot observe 
I am afraid your semantical argument might actually be called a red herring, only to distract. You are basically saying that nothing cannot be studied, and therefore it COULD cause something. But the very definition of nothing shows that nothing is not something, but the absence of something. You are not taking into consideration that nothing is just a word, and it is exactly as we define it. There is no "nothing" that can cause things, just not be studied. Nothing is just a human concept.

Let us define nothing scholarly. This is how Merriam-Webster defines it:
Definition of nothing
 (Entry 1 of 4)
1: not any thing : no thing
 leaves nothing to the imagination
2: no part
3: one of no interest, value, or consequence
 they mean nothing to me
Nothing is the absence of interest, value and consequence. Whatever has a consequence cannot be called "nothing".

What you call nothing "operates under laws which we cannot observe".  That is not actually nothing -- it is just the supernatural, which we can't even prove to exist.



stop your cherry-picking
I am not cherry-picking here. I literally searched for "electromagnetism" and sourced the first site I visited. As your own source affirmed, the word "electromagnetic force" is synonymous with the word "Lorentz force" in terms of meaning and usage. Both refer to the same force. I am not cherry-picking this time, I am not even picking.


You didn't create a syllogism - the part we were talking about is effectively your premise. 
We were discussing a statement. In that discussion, which was a whole other branch than the other themes, there were no logical fallacies involved -- only examples and objections. HAD I put up a syllogism and tried to call my conclusion "logically proven", then your accusation of a logical fallacy would be justified. I didn't.


That is a non-sequitur - specifically because of the fallacy of composition
I did not commit a fallacy of composition. I implied that since something is true of the whole, that this is also true for some of its parts. Even if I made a logical fallacy, it still would not be a fallacy of composition, but a fallacy of division -- the exact opposite fallacy. A fallacy of composition would be to infer that since a part of the whole has a given attribute, the entire whole also has that attribute. I did not do that, I stated that properties cannot emerge from nothing. You then argued that properties can emerge from nothing, as exemplified by sodium chloride. In my rebuttals I went of-track, claiming that properties of a whole are always inherent in the constituent parts, a fallacy of division.

I admit that was a fallacy. I must formulate my statement as first intended.

I rephrase and emphasize: no property of a whole can emerge from properties not inhibited by its smaller parts

Instead of my previous formulation, this formulation is not forced me into defending a useless semantical argument over what a "new" property is. With this formulation, I accept the fact that harmlessness is a new property. However, it also puts words on a limitation of emergence. No property can emerge from nothing. Sodium chloride gets its new property harmlessness, but that "new" property isn't emerging from nothing -- it emerges from the physical properties of its smaller parts. 

Nothing, having no consequence, can't be the reason for "I" emerging from non-"I".
#18
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,997
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
You define "I" as "oneself as opposed to another". This is circular reasoning. "I" and myself is the same thing, you can't define one based on the other in this case.
Majority of definitions are defined by synonyms. Are you saying you totally dismiss how I  define “I”? If so, can you give me a better definition? I doubt you can get anymore axiomatic than I. 

Furthermore, calling "I" only a concept is an understatement. By definition, our concepts don't exist unless we exist. Therefore, "I" made concepts, and is not a product of them. If "I" don't exist independently of concepts then concepts can't exist.
Why is it dichotomous? “I” can range from you as an individual human, to encompassing the universe, depending on how you observe reality. 
#19
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
I love how you dropped the entire beginning of my argument - so I'll finish this off for ya - the lack of consequence and value - well of course, if nothing did result in something then that something wouldn't be nothing, and therefore would have consequence, but a book doesn't have "consequence" but pushing it off of a shelf has a consequence, the reaction of something can produce a consequence. Also... you don't seem to know what a red herring is - a red herring is whenever you try to continuously mention a thing that has nothing to do with the argument itself in an attempt to mislead your interlocutor, but the talk about salt and chlorine is extremely topical, go on, prove that its a not a new thing - harmlessness that is - because it seems like you just conceded that point to me. 

Logical Fallacies do not only apply to syllogism, logical fallacies apply to any appeal to logic, any time whenever you try to perform reasoning, is a time whenever you have a chance to commit a logical fallacy - your entire basis is a fallacy, a fallacy of composition - which is presuming that because the composition of things have a quality, the components also have that quality, which is false. A single drop of water is not loud, like a waterfall is - a single page of paper is not sturdy, like a collection of hundreds of papers are. My point is, your assertions that "Any emergent feature is only emerging because its core function exists on lower levels" Is simply ignorant on your part - as new things can come as a result of reactions of that thing with other things, so no - not always will the core functions exist until the reaction occurs, that is how chemistry works. 
"Chemical reactions involve interaction between chemicals such that all reactants are changed into new materials. The properties of the new materials are different from those of the reactants. This is distinct from other changes such as evaporation, melting, boiling, freezing and mixing where changes involve no new substances." [LINK]
No - the harmlessness - comes from the chemical reaction - it comes from the emergent property of sodium reacting with chlorine chemically, it has nothing to do with its base parts, and I'm gonna assume you mean "exhibited" not "inhibited" because inhibited means to be stopped or prevented, whereas exhibited to be allowed or to be shown - so I'm gonna assume you meant the former. But your claim is simply not backed by any evidence, and is itself a fallacy - furthermore - no - because you were originally talking about wholes, you were talking about the brain and salf, so yes - you were indeed talking about the fallacy of composition, now you have moved on, but that means nothing - you cannot simply expect me to drop a fallacy because you are making a new one - that's just another one to add to the list. 

Your "claim" is unproven, you have asserted it, but done nothing to actually prove the claim, and it the reasoning that you have just provided is quite literally a textbook logical fallacy - you have yet to prove anything, only assert - you've admitted to making fallacies - try to actually back it up next time - until you answer my points comprehensively and actually acknowledge your fallacies - this is all your getting from me - because you are a dishonest interlocter. 
Topic's author
#20
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I did not commit a fallacy of composition. I committed a fallacy of division. From my source, it reads:
A fallacy of division[1] is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.
 
The converse of this fallacy is called fallacy of composition, which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole.
 
In my argument, I didn't say that the mind must have the same properties as its parts, but that its parts must have the same properties as the mind. This is a fallacy of division.


And no, I am not a dishonest interlocker. Just a noob.

I take everything I have said back, as it was based upon the wrong assumptions. My view was misrepresented by the words I wrote due to all of our semantical arguments.
#21
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Incorrect, you've done both of the fallacies, but that doesn't really matter - because you are primarily interested in the "soul" - or what you call the property which allows neurological networks to lead to consciousness. Which, supposing that these networks don't have the right properties for consciousness, and therefore coming to the conclusions that their is a soul - is a fallacy of composition - which was my point - you could yes, argue that you were going for it the opposite way around - because you have in fact committed both fallacies in your reasoning.

You take back everything you've said? Hmm, how interesting, but semantics had nothing to do with your claims. If you concede your wrong, fine by me, but don't distract yourself from the fundamental leap in logic you've made by appealing to semantics - the specific fallacy you used is semantics - that's about it. 
Topic's author
#22
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
semantics had nothing to do with your claims
Well, actually, everything.

Our debate around "nothing" was basically just a semantical debate about what the word meant, and whether or not any given definition was self-contradictory.

Our debate around properties hinges on what a "property" means. If property means any function or attribute, then of course you were correct. However, if we define property as the rules by which a given object operates, then I would be correct. Don't call me out for a logical fallacy, hear me out: both the salt and the individual parts operate based on the same laws of physics, with the same "properties" of mass, energy, momentum and so forth. The way you used the word property, any new behaviour (like salt reacting in a harmful way or water molecules together being "wet") would qualify as being a new property. I would agree to that logic, but that was not what I mean when I made my argument. What I said was that a chemical reaction is just a rearrangement of protons, electrons and neutrons -- creating a new structure that behaves in new ways.

The behaviour of the whole is only "new" because the smaller parts interact in new ways -- with the same properties (electric charge, mass, inertia, colour, spin, etc).


I am sure you would agree that no new physical laws are created by the reaction between sodium and chloride -- the governing rules stay the same.


We only disagreed because we, in our different mindsets, couldn't fully understand what the other meant. There was a communication issue.


No, I am not creating an excuse, this is genuinely why we disagreed.
#23
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Well now your shifting the goalposts, we were never discussing that new physical laws weren't made - new properties were introduced by the emergent property of chemical reactions, by the physical laws of the universe. 
Topic's author
#24
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
The thing is, the new properties are only the large scale effects of the same old laws. And the laws only affect certain things because those things have properties. Salt doesn't harm you, because its new structure behaves differently when interacting with another object. "Harmlessness" is only a description of this new behaviour. It is this word that we regard as a "new" property, while actually, the only thing that changed is the structure of particles. The new structure interacts differently with objects. This is not due to it gaining a new physical "attribute" like mass, or spin. It is because the new structure, in contact with another object, sets off a different chain of physical interactions.

The same objects or particles, in a different structure, acts differently. This is apparent in for example Lego.

Calling it a new property...isn't wrong, but it certainly missed the point of the topic. 

"I" being an experienced reality as opposed to blind atoms moving around is certainly a different category of "property" than the difference between chemical properties.

And no, I wasn't trying to prove the "soul", I still haven't made up my mind about which view I support.
#25
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
It is indeed a new property as a result of the new structure, that is how chemical reactions work.
#26
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Benjamin
A mosquitoes brain has 250,000 neurons and it is aware of itself. The human brain has 8.6x10^10 neurons.
Topic's author
#27
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
ok.
#28
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
table salt - totally harmless.
Uhhhh....... disagree. Worse, you accuse Benjamin of chemical illiteracy while you display historic illiteracy, so whose is the greater offense? Not mine to say, just a matter of civility. Salt has so many functions and meanings, it is one of the few words in my OED that occupy many column inches of definition and etemology to complete. It is a seasoning, a commodity of trade, and payment, a preserver, a multi-faceted metaphor, and on and on. At one time in Renaissance Italy, and likely elsewhere, its value as a commodity priced it out of the food prep industry, to be replaced by clove.
As for its potential harm, yes, although composed of two poisonous elements, their combination yields a substance of such value, it will never be valueless. However, as with any edible substance, its excess consumption can bring death, and many maladies less serious. Hardly "totally harmless."
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
No time now, but I will comment when U c am. Good topic.
#30
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FLRW
False, Mosquitoes have not ever shown signs of self-awareness, in fact outside of mammals it's a very rare trait indeed.

They are conscious (barely) but they are not genuinely aware that they exist as an entity that others percieve and which interact with their surroundings in complex ways.

Humans become conscious at only 5 months of age usually, yet they are not actually aware they exist and can interact with the outside world as an entity themselves until 15-18 months (15 months is genius level, babies that either can walk or talk at this age are very fast learners).

A test to confirm this involved a trap where a baby had to try to push a trolley that their own body weight was holding down via a carpet/rug.

Babies/toddlers below 16 months generally couldn't work out it was them stopping the cart.