Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, benjayk
> <> wrote:
>> Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of the
>> brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go
>> beyond
>> the brain, that may be essential to our functioning. The way that
>> computational power of the brain is estimated now relies on a quite
>> reductionstic view of what the brain is and what it does.
> And the problem with the reductionist view is?
It seeks to dissect reality into pieces, while if you have some sense of
spirituality, you see that this is not how reality functions (as it is a
whole). It works reasonably well for simple things like motors, but that's
Even if you just look at science, it shows that the reductionist view is
fundamentally flawed. In quantum mechanics you have one interconnected wave
function, not neatly seperateable pieces. The reductionists do a bit of
hand-waving and say that this is not relevant at the macro-scale, but they
haven't shown this yet. Just because newtonian physics is a good
approximation on the surface, doesn't mean that it isn't fundamentally
insufficient to explain the workings of complex systems.

Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote:
>  It certainly seems to
> be the case that if you throw some chemical elements together in a
> particular way, you get intelligence and consciousness.
It may seem that way to some people. It may seem that the earth is flat as
They are just jumping to conclusions from some vague understanding of what
is happening. We see a correlation between brain function and human
consciousness? Well, that obviously means that brains produces consciousness
(or that consciousness is equivalent to the firing of neurons, and it's
subjective nature is an illusion). But, wait, no it doesn't, not AT ALL.
Correlations are fine, but they don't suggest by a long stretch that the one
thing (brain) that correlates to some extent with the other thing (human
consciousness) *produces* a broad generalization of the other thing
(consciousness as such).

Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote:
>  The elements
> obey well-understood chemical laws, even though they constitute a
> complex system with difficult to predict behaviour.
Do we understand them well? OK, good enough to make a host of good
predictions, but we have no remotely complete understanding of them. Also,
that biology is reducible to chemistry is an assumption, but that itself is
just a reductionistic faith. They can say that if they manage to derive
biology from chemistry.

View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

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

Reply via email to