Those ideas are familiar to me too. The thing is, even if we can understand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in terms of electrical and chemical interactions, that doesn't mean that they are less real, just that we understand more about what happens when we think, feel, or act. Isn't it just as plausible that it is our thoughts, feelings, and actions that cause the chemical changes? Why do we assume that the chemicals and electrical impulses control us when it could just as easily be the other way around?

Maybe the more we understand of the way things work, the less awe we have for it sometimes. It doesn't have to be that way though. When you think about it, you're talking about some very complex and delicate processes, and we are just beginning to be able to understand some of the basics of how it works. There is so much more that we haven't figured out yet. Being able to explain a process doesn't make it less real.

Your questions are really good, interesting philosophical issues, that deserve a second thought. They can be extended further. It has been said that any science sufficiently advanced will seem to be magic to those who don't have the ability to understand it. As we learn more and more, sometimes it seems like we lose the magic, but there is always more to learn, isn't there? I probably shouldn't go there, but I feel like this also applies to the nature of God and creation. As science explains more and more, we come closer to understanding things that were beyond humand comprehension before. But it doesn't have to subtract from these things, and neither does it make them less real, just because we have increased our knowlege and abilities.

Okay, so for a condensed answer - we don't have to be slaves to the chemicals, but how about masters of them instead? Sounds better that way to me anyway.

<font color=orange>"They accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it." ... from the Director of Censorship...

</font color=orange>