Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Actually, who are we? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skeptique)
    If that were true at least we could describe ourselves as an "energy signature".
    Energy signature? What does that mean?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    well... we don't change in one split second it happens over time it's not like


    but yeah we physically aren't the same object BUT the DNA that made these cells is exactly the same, and the cells that are made are clones of the cells that were in us so maybe we are just clones of ourselves?
    DNA alone can make cells? No energy needed? And if we're just clones of ourselves, why we always change.. physically? Clones are not supposed to be the same? It seems to me the new cells look older after cloning...right?

    http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/human...r-50091356.jpg

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Are you asking if we age, well yes we do. As an animal we are a contained creature, you can't rip my heart out and say I am an animal, I am then just a piece of flesh. You could redesign a waterfall though, in fact waterfalls are continually changing due to natural processes.
    We are not the same person, although we may be the same conglomeration of molecules, we have experiences and we change. We die, physically we die, but our atoms don't die they are just recycled. It is a good job too, without this recycling could you imagine how much life would exist now!

    I suppose you are digging for some rationale for being, as if it is a real question. Evolution, conservation of energy, entropy should answer your question. If however you need some way to live forever, I cannot help you.
    So... if we want to live forever, science is not the answer? Now I know why religions still exist. Wait... you said " our atoms don't die.. ". We're not those atoms? Who are we then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    So... if we want to live forever, science is not the answer? Now I know why religions still exist. Wait... you said " our atoms don't die.. ". We're not those atoms? Who are we then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't know if you are suggesting that we are something other than a biological machine, like a biological machine with a soul. Like I say if you are looking for a way to live forever, by inventing an unobserved mechanism, a soul, I can't help you. Personally I am prepared to die, soulless, hopefully at a very great age, maybe one of those thousand year old suckers in the bible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    DNA alone can make cells? No energy needed? And if we're just clones of ourselves, why we always change.. physically? Clones are not supposed to be the same? It seems to me the new cells look older after cloning...right?

    http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/human...r-50091356.jpg

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Parts of the neurons will remain the same, other parts will have changed.



    Essentialy, yes we are. Though i wouldnt say stupid.



    Personality certainly is. But i was referring to the self, the thing that experiences, the soul, whatever you want to call it.
    But programmers & engineers create computers. Computers don't create themselves. Who creates us?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VannR)
    I'll take the approach of semantic externalism here and say to you that the meaning of the word "me" comes from its usage. The word "me" was learned as a denotation of yourself, constantly changing thing that you are. Thus, to say that you are not certain what "me" is is essentially a paradox since you must possess the concept of your own being in order to raise the question - you are doubting the existence of the very thing that you require in order to doubt anything at all.

    The only way to avoid this is to narrow the targeting of your question to the nature of "me" as a denotable thing, not whether or not "me" is a denotable thing. I notice that your line of enquiry is more focused on the nature of being, but I just wanted to clear that up.
    Me + me +me +...= us

    I think I have been talking about "me" too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AH127)
    No. I don't think I'd be entirely off mark if I said that the brain is the most complex thing in the known universe. So no, not stupid. To be honest, with the amount of questions you're asking, I'm leaning towards the idea of you being a troll.
    I said "...stupid machine ". Why? Because basically computers act like a pupet. We control them. Computers can't control themselves. You think a pupet isn't stupid? Okay. It's your view, not mine.

    I'm a troll? Lol. No, I'm not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Who am I???
    Simple, the cookie monster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNotReallyMe)
    that's asking a different question, it's more about who created us than who are we
    '"Actually, who are we? " is the first question( the title too ). The second one is " who creates us,actually? ".

    It's okay if you can't answer the second question. Thanks.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Wrong.
    Why wrong?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Parts of the neurons will remain the same, other parts will have changed.



    Essentialy, yes we are. Though i wouldnt say stupid.



    Personality certainly is. But i was referring to the self, the thing that experiences, the soul, whatever you want to call it.
    Have you ever read this?

    According to a substantial review done by Vargha-Khadem and Polkey (1992), numerous hemidecortication surgeries—the removal of half the brain—had been conducted for a number of disorders. In a majority of these cases, cognition and brain function continued uninterrupted. A few cases even documented an improvement in cognition. Additionally, in numerous cases of intractable seizures, where substantial parts of brain have been damaged, substantial cognitive recovery resulted in 80 to 90% of the cases.

    These and numerous other studies illustrate this effect—called neuroplasticity. In other words, the inner self is not reduced by brain damage or removal. The same person remains after brain parts are removed. The same personality remains. Many retain all their memories. The majority of brain-damaged stroke patients go about living normal lives afterward as well. Even in cases where memory, cognitive and/or motor skills are affected by cerebrovascular stroke, the person within is still present. Though handicapped, the person remains unaffected by the brain damage.

    Memory, sensory perception and the emotional self-concept are not brain-dependent. Many organisms have memory and sensory perception without having a brain. Bacteria, for example, do not have brains, yet they can memorize a wide variety of skills and events, including what damaged or helped them in the past. Other organisms such as plants, nematodes and others maintain memory and recall without having brains or even central nervous systems.

    I think it's time to put something deep inside in the equations if we really want to solve some scientific problems caused by lots of scientists (materialists ).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    According to a substantial review done by Vargha-Khadem and Polkey (1992), numerous hemidecortication surgeries—the removal of half the brain—had been conducted for a number of disorders. In a majority of these cases, cognition and brain function continued uninterrupted. A few cases even documented an improvement in cognition. Additionally, in numerous cases of intractable seizures, where substantial parts of brain have been damaged, substantial cognitive recovery resulted in 80 to 90% of the cases.
    Though I'm not familiar with this, I'm not surprised. This is a similar to what I was referring to by saying that we are part of our brain. Different parts of the brain have different functions, and we can function perfectly fine without large parts of them. Especially because equivalent parts exist in the other hemisphere.

    (Original post by skunkboy)
    These and numerous other studies illustrate this effect—called neuroplasticity. In other words, the inner self is not reduced by brain damage or removal. The same person remains after brain parts are removed. The same personality remains.
    That's not even remotely true. There are numerous examples of personalities drastically changing from even small parts of the brain being damaged.

    The main point is that it isn't as simple as the whole brain being responsible for our "self", nor is a single part of the brain responsible for that "self". Instead different parts of the brain makes up the "self".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Though I'm not familiar with this, I'm not surprised. This is a similar to what I was referring to by saying that we are part of our brain. Different parts of the brain have different functions, and we can function perfectly fine without large parts of them. Especially because equivalent parts exist in the other hemisphere.



    That's not even remotely true. There are numerous examples of personalities drastically changing from even small parts of the brain being damaged.

    The main point is that it isn't as simple as the whole brain being responsible for our "self", nor is a single part of the brain responsible for that "self". Instead different parts of the brain makes up the "self".
    MRI and CT brain scans on patients following brain injuries or strokes have shown that particular functions will often move from one part of the brain to another after the functioning area was damaged. I must therefore ask: Who or what is it that moves these physical functions from one part of the brain to another? Is the damaged brain area making this decision? That would not make sense. Some other guiding function must be orchestrating this move of the function. What or who is guiding this process,do you think?

    The retention of memory, emotion, and the moving of brain function from one part of the brain to another is more evidence of a deeper mechanism; an operator or driver within the body who is utilizing the brain—rather than being the brain. The driver is the continuing element. Physical structures continually undergo change, while the driver remains, adapting to those changes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    were ants for the aliens to squash
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    With current sciences( understanding of the world) we are unable to explain with certainty what we are. Religiously we are given meaning and hope. Scientifically we are an anomaly in an erratic world so normal. We are merely matter atoms which are made up of quarks which are made up of.... These can only be explained with a greater dimensional understanding it is not just of it may go 2 directions. Cause and effect. I personally think that we are just objects with atomic structures and electrical signals that make up a small part of the world. Souls do not exist and energy is contained within one form. We are a part of it and yet all of it is part of us. Philosophy is limited cause we are humans with only one perspective, let's wait for someone else to join the party!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Personinsertname)
    With current sciences( understanding of the world) we are unable to explain with certainty what we are. Religiously we are given meaning and hope. Scientifically we are an anomaly in an erratic world so normal. We are merely matter atoms which are made up of quarks which are made up of.... These can only be explained with a greater dimensional understanding it is not just of it may go 2 directions. Cause and effect. I personally think that we are just objects with atomic structures and electrical signals that make up a small part of the world. Souls do not exist and energy is contained within one form. We are a part of it and yet all of it is part of us. Philosophy is limited cause we are humans with only one perspective, let's wait for someone else to join the party!
    How do you know souls do not exist?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    How do you know souls do not exist?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was speaking personally( in my opinion) i based most of my statements on my own understanding of science.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Are you trying to argue in favour of dualism?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    MRI and CT brain scans on patients following brain injuries or strokes have shown that particular functions will often move from one part of the brain to another after the functioning area was damaged. I must therefore ask: Who or what is it that moves these physical functions from one part of the brain to another? Is the damaged brain area making this decision? That would not make sense. Some other guiding function must be orchestrating this move of the function. What or who is guiding this process,do you think?
    You're assuming something "moves" or the functions or orchestrates it, but that isn't what happens. The brain changes itself at a local level by the modification of connections between neurons. While the mechanisms are complicated, essentially what happens is the brain utilizes the resources it has, and if it is still receiving a particular stimulus, then other areas will deal with that input because the other area doesnt exist anymore. It is a well understood chemical process.


    (Original post by skunkboy)
    The retention of memory, emotion, and the moving of brain function from one part of the brain to another is more evidence of a deeper mechanism; an operator or driver within the body who is utilizing the brain—rather than being the brain. The driver is the continuing element. Physical structures continually undergo change, while the driver remains, adapting to those changes.
    How so? The only really defining feature of the driver is the ability to be aware of some of the brains functions, and affect the brains function. We know that the brain changes based on it's awareness of itself, and we know that the brain is not changed by an unaccountable Driver, so the driver must be inside the brain.

    Part of the problem is however, if we remove the brain, we have no way of interacting with any potential external driver.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.