On Oct 1, 6:14 am, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and > >> >> momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects? > > >> > No. If you are wondering whether I think that anything that > >> > contradicts established observations of physics, chemistry, or biology > >> > is going on, the answer has always been no, and the fact that you are > >> > still asking means that you don't understand what I've said. > > >> If it seems that I have misunderstood it is because I see a > >> contradiction. If a neuron opens it's ion channels because of a > >> thought, then thought is something we can see all the correlates of in > >> terms of third person observable particle collisions. If the ion > >> channel were to open without the observable and necessary particle > >> collisions then the neuron would be violating the conservation if > >> momentum. > > > It's not the particle collisions that cause an ion channel to open, > > it's the neuron's sensitivity to specific electrochemical conditions > > associated with neurotransmitter molecules, and it's ability to > > respond with a specific physical change. All of those changes are > > accompanied by qualitative experiences on that microcosmic level. Our > > thoughts do not cause the ion channels to directly open or close any > > more than a screen writer causes the pixels of your TV to get brighter > > or dimmer, you are talking about two entirely different scales of > > perception. Think of our thoughts and feelings as the 'back end' of > > the total physical 'front end' activity of the brain. The back end > > thoughts and feelings cannot be reduced to the front end activities of > > neurons or ion channels, but they can be reduced to the back end > > experiences of those neurons or ion channels - almost, except that > > they synergize in a more significant way than front end phenomena can. > > > Think of it like a fractal vis if you want, where the large design is > > always emerging from small designs, but imagine that the large design > > and the small designs are both controlled by separate, but overlapping > > intelligences so that sometimes the small forms change and propagate > > to the larger picture and other times the largest picture changes and > > all of the smaller images are consequently changed. Now imagine that > > the entire fractal dynamic has an invisible, private backstage to it, > > which has no fractal shapes developing and shifting every second, but > > it has instead flavors and sounds that change at completely different > > intervals of time than the front end fractal, so that the pulsating > > rhythms of the fractal are represented on the back end as long > > melodies and fragrant journeys. > > > Both the visual fractal and the olfactory musical follow some of the > > same cues exactly and both of them diverge from each other completely > > as well so that you cannot look at the fractal and find some graphic > > mechanism that produces a song, and the existence of the song does not > > mean that there is an invisible musicality pushing the pixels of the > > fractal around, it's just that they are like the two ends of a bowtie; > > one matter across space and the other experience through time. They > > influence each other - sometimes intentionally, sometimes arbitrarily, > > and sometimes in a conflicting or self defeating way. > > I'm afraid the analogies you use don't help, at least for me. Does an > ion channel ever open in the absence of an observable cause? It's a > simple yes/no question. Whether consciousness is associated, > supervenient, linked, provided by God or whatever is a separate > question.
Observable by who? It seems like a simple yes or no question to you because you aren't willing or able to see the whole phenomena. If I choose to think about something that makes me mad, I observe that I feel angry, and I observe that neurons fire, ion channels open, etc at the same time. The thoughts and anger they arouse are the observable cause, but they cannot be observed with a microscope or fMRI. They are observed by the person whose brain it is. This is the literal reality of what is going on. If I put my hand on a hot stove, neurons fire, ion channels open, and I feel burning pain through my skin. The cause there is the heat of the stove. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
