On Jul 28, 11:16 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > We are the living example of how material is important to perceptions.
> > A few hundred micrograms of LSD proves that that is the case.
> Are you suggesting that the LSD itself is what is having these trippy
> experiences, rather than causing neurons to behave differently and thus
> alter patterns of thought in the brain?

No not at all. I'm pointing out that perception can be altered by
substances rather than information within the arithmetic logic of the
machine. If I give Deep Blue LSD, nothing happens.

> Would you say LSD is always in the state of this feeling, and we only share
> in that feeling when it gets stirred in with the other molecules in the
> brain?

Nah. LSD is just a time capsule from the era of biological evolution
when anthropological level consciousness was being developed. The
stuff is a souped up version of a molecule that happens to be used in
ergot for a different purpose (the alphabet of organic chemistry is
complex, but finite) , but our neurons recognize it as a very
important substance and escort it past all the velvet ropes to the
executive suites. The executives have a party with their long lost
relatives and prepare for them to move in permanently. They quickly
discover the mistaken identity, but by then all kinds of new executive
orders repealing perceptual inhibitions have gone out to the rest of
the brain. The whole brain now parties for hours as the psyche goes
through a full reboot.

> All external movement and speech is caused by neurons.  For behavior to be
> altered, the neurons must be affected in some way by something.

They are altered, but not in a way that signifies the sense or motives
of that behavior. They're just affected on the electromagnetic side.
The sense and motives do drive the electromagnetic side though, and
vice versa...but their role in each others phenomenology is not the
limit of their own phenomenology.

> > Seeing yellow isn't a signal, it's an experience of
> > neurons,
> Neuron's don't receive yellow light, the skill is opaque.  Neurons in the
> brain therefore don't sense yellow, they sense the activity of other
> neurons.

You've got it backwards. There is no such thing as yellow light. The
only yellow we have eve seen is neurons being stimulated by colorless
wavelengths of electromagnetic stimulation (which does not physically
exist - per my theory, electromagnetism happens from within matter as
a shared experience not between matter as a substance in space). We
are neurons in the brain. If they don't see yellow, then we don't see
yellow. You're not going to tell me that we don't see yellow, right?

> It is a theory, and you have a right to it, but if you expect others to
> adopt it it should explain something other theories have failed to, or
> present some evidence for it.

I don't expect others to adopt it.  If they care about the truth
though, then they should explain why my theories fail. I think it was
RAW who said it usually takes a generation for the keepers of the old
paradigm to die out before the new view is accepted.

> > That's promissory materialism. It's coming from overconfidence in
> > 'emulation'. Heat cannot be emulated.
> Sure it can.

How can heat be emulated?

> > Yellow is just visually
> > experience of a different frequency of heat. If you make something
> > hot, it is not an emulation, it's just hot.
> It provides warmth within the emulation.

Unicorns provide transportation in my mind.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to