On 16.08.2011 16:08 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Craig
Weinberg<whatsons...@gmail.com>  wrote:

If the brain does something not predictable by modelling its
biochemistry that means it works by magic.

Then you are saying that whether you accept what I'm what I'm
writing here or not is purely predictable through biochemistry
alone or else must be 'magic'. So in order for you to change your
mind, some substance needs to cross your blood brain barrier, and
that the content of your mind - the meaning of what you are
choosing to think about right now can only be magic. I think my
approach is much more scientific. I'm not prejudging what the
solution can or cannot be in advance.

If you want to call psychology magic, that's ok with me, but it
certainly drives biochemistry as much as it is driven by
biochemistry. Why is it so hard to accept that both levels of
reality are in fact real? Our body doesn't seem to have a problem
taking commands from our mind. Why should I deny that those
commands have a source which cannot be adequately described in
terms of temperature and pressure or voltage? To presume that we
can only know what the mind is by studying it's shadow in the brain
is, I think catastrophically misguided and ultimately unworkable.
If not for our own experiences of the mind, biochemistry would not
tell us that such a thing could possibly exist.

Our body precisely follows the deterministic biochemical reactions
that comprise it. The mind is generated as a result of these
biochemical reactions; a reaction occurs in your brain which causes
you to have a thought to move your arm and move your arm. How could
it possibly be otherwise?

If I understand Bruno correctly, than his position is that this happens exactly otherwise.


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