On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The subject feels he initiates and has control over the voluntary
>> movement but not the involuntary movement. That's the difference
>> between them.
> Ok, now you could understand what I'm talking about if you wanted to.
> All you have to do is realize that it is not possible for us to feel
> that there is a difference between them if there is not a difference
> between them. Doesn't mean that the difference is what we think it is
> - it could very well be only a feeling - but so what? What possible
> purpose could such a feeling have, and how could it possibly arise
> from particle mechanics? Where is the feeling located? Why is it
> there? Why don't we have the same feeling about our stomach digesting?
We have different feelings about different things and this means there
are different brain processes underlying them. Our neurology is not
set up to control our digestion, but I suppose it is possible for a
mutant to be born who has motor and sensory connections from the gut
to the cortex. I don't see how you will help your case if you claim
that there is some fundamental cellular difference between voluntary
and involuntary actions, since in broad terms all the cells in the
body follow the same basic plan.
>> Both types of movement, however, are completely
>> determined by the low level behaviour of the matter in the brain,
> You can say that if you want to, but it just means that the low level
> behavior of matter is magic, and that even though it's only a large
> molecule, it wants to drive a Bugatti.
If a movement is *not* determined by the low level behaviour of matter
in the brain that means that some part of the brain will do something
magical. An ion channel will open not because the appropriate ligand
has bound, but all by itself.
>> which can in theory be modeled by a computer.
>> No particle moves unless
>> it is pushed by another particle or force,
> Force is metaphysical. It's just our way of understanding processes
> which are occurring outside of us rather than inside. My view is that
> it's all sense and that force is in the eye of the beholder.
Even if you believe there is no basic physical reality, there are
certain consistencies in the behaviour of objects in the apparent
reality, and that is the subject of science.
>> otherwise it's magic, like
>> a table levitating.
> Tables do levitate if they aren't stuck to a large planet. What's
> magic is that we think it's a table and not a cloud of atoms flying
> around a volume of empty space.
Tables only do what the forces on them make them do. Same with
everything else in the universe, whether it's particles inside cells
or inside stars.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at