> Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
I haven't argued that at all and I'm not saying we can't measure it and understand it. I'm saying reducing it to "just chemicals" is missing the forest for the trees and goes against understanding it better. Might as well reduce it to just atoms, or just protons/electrons, or just quarks... Do you see what I mean? Why are chemicals where you draw the line?
You are right. I was just trying to come up with a generic term for 'the physical world'. Neurons are made up of molecules, Neurotransmitters are molecules, a 'chemical'. Even the spark of the brain, isn't it just calcium ions carrying the charge.
Guess I was just off-hand thinking that 'chemicals' was 'reasonable' cutoff point from going too small, but small enough. It was off the cuff scaling, I have no real evidence where we would stop on the sliding scale from larger emergent properties.
People that go smaller, to quarks, and throw in Quantum Mechanics are usually not super serious. It gets woo-woo.
I haven't argued that at all and I'm not saying we can't measure it and understand it. I'm saying reducing it to "just chemicals" is missing the forest for the trees and goes against understanding it better. Might as well reduce it to just atoms, or just protons/electrons, or just quarks... Do you see what I mean? Why are chemicals where you draw the line?