Dear Craig,
I went through most of your (unmarked) remarks and my mouse forced me
(against my better judgement) to add some of my own.
I wll insert in blue - bold Italics.
John Mikes

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Craig Weinberg <>wrote:

> On Oct 1, 11:01 am, Jason Resch <> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Craig Weinberg <
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Jason Resch <> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg <>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch <> 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,
> >
> > The neurons sensitivities can be ignored if one looks at the neuron as a
> > collection of particals, and you see interactions between particles
> rather
> > than between neurons. If you think this is not possible, then you are
> > assuming neurons can do things that would violate the conservation of
> > momentum.
> If you rule out the sensitivity of the neuron, then you rule out the
> neuron. It's like taking a baby and putting in a blender and saying
> 'see, there's no baby there anymore'. Don't you see that reducing
> everything to particles is a meaningless exercise that makes
> everything meaningless? You cannot on the one hand deny all levels of
> organization above that of the atom (or are atoms too qualitative? is
> it all just quarks, bosons, and leptons?) and then invoke
> 'collections' of particles. Collections to whom?
*We have a notion (human) to explain some aspects of phenomena received by
epistemic enrichment over the millennia, I call it conventional sciences and
it formulates "PARTICLES" (by aid of mathematics). We devise a 'model' of
topics for our thinking populated by such figments and built upon it a
technology that is 'almost' good (some mishaps...). So I agree with your
outcry. *
> > 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.
> I would be more inclined to say they are the "top end" rather than the
> end",

I understand, but I'm saying that isn't correct. I think that thoughts
are not the inevitable result of a physical mechanism, that's not
possible. Experiences can only arise from more primitive experiences,
not from an inanimate object.
*Amen*. *We know so little about our mentality*... *(if it is YOUR word: *
*what would you identify with 'awareness' and 'information'? the latter*
*comes pretty well later on).*
 as thoughts are built on top of awareness of information,

Information is a metaphysical concept. It's not real. That's where you
are jumping from something which is meaningful but insubstantial
(thoughts, awareness) to something substantial but not meaningful.
Information is just giving a name to ignorance. It is a phantom having
neither meaning not substance, it's like phlogiston or soul - a
presumptive objectification of subjective experience. My hypothesis
presents an antidote to this error.

>which is
> built on top of brain behaviors and states, which is built on top of
> behaviors, which is built on top of chemistry, which is built on top of
> particle interactions of physics.

I understand completely. That's what I used to think to. It doesn't
make sense though. It's like saying that a song is built on top of a
stereo system behaviors and states that is built on top of CD player
behaviors, which is built on top of laser technology and polymer
chemistry, which is built on top of photon interactions and electronic
*Amen. *
>When you describe it as a "back end" it
> casts a mystical, unprobable and thus unscientific light on the idea,
> that explanation ends with "there is no explanation".

Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's not
accurate. My point is that front end - back end reflects the parity
and parallelism of the system. It is not a cascading bottom up
causality, it is a parallel coordination as well as a bi-directional
mutual causality.
*Add to it: the rest of the so far unknown everything that may also*
*initiate the observed little we know of. Causality as we speak about *
*it is a selection from the already known - rejecting the rest of the *
*world and the rest of the aspects - those we did not yet perceived.*
>Worse, either this
> invisible back end is tinkering with the trajectories of particles (as in
> interactionist dualism) or it is just there, having no effect (as an
> epiphenomenon)

No, you just don't understand it because you are holding on to the
fantasy of a voyeuristic universe. I'm talking about the voice in your
head right now that you are listening to read this sentence. This
voice is reflected as electromagnetic modulation patterns in the brain
- changing voltages, action potentials, ion channels opening and
closing.. but those things are all utterly meaningless were it not for
their top level coherence as a voice in someone's mind. The voice is
indeed invisible, and it does indeed orchestrate brain activity from
within, but the trajectories of particles are determined by their own
causes and conditions - they do what they need to do, and they do what
the brain as a whole needs them to do. They are all part of the same
*Nice description, IMO missing the essence: the 'mentality' of which*
*this entire system (neuronl brainfunctions) is a TOOL for. The one*
*that thinks, remembers, is aware and erxperiences. 'Us' (self?)*
> and leads to zombies and questions of its purpose.
> Alternately, you could adopt Liebniz's approach and say the front end and
> back end are independent realities which are, using your term, synergized.

They are partially independent but they are overlapping as well.

> But Liebniz's harmony leads to pure idealism, for the existence of minds
> enough to explain all observations; there would be no need for a physical
> word to "force" our observations to agree with physical law.

My hypothesis does not lead to pure idealism at all. It is the
synthesis between the ideal and the concrete (opposite of ideal)
through sense. Subjects are influenced by physics from the bottom up,
physics is influenced by subjectivity (at least in the case of
voluntary control of our minds and bodies) from the top down. They do
not influence each other directly though - we do not command our
fingers to type by petitioning them intellectually to do so, we
actively induce them to move through our realized motivations. We
cannot directly bridge the lofty heights of our cognitive awareness
with the gross materiality of our body, we have to step it down to the
common neurological language of gesture - tension, relaxation, etc.

> > 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,
> Either this invisible and irreducible backstage can alter the direction or
> energy of particles (thus leading to observable physical differences and
> effects) or it cannot, making it an unnecessary epiphenomenon.  Which
> you say it is?

The direction and energy of particles *is* the invisible and
irreducible backstage, just seen from the public front. All events and
energies are experiences of material substances. It's only confusing
because we are such an enormous compilation of energies and materials
and we are overwhelmed with the front end appearances of them as
molecules, cells, tissues, etc. We can't see the private, experiential
side of all of those microcosmic structures so we are confounded by
the necessity of jumping from the fact of our own monumentally
elaborated sensorimotive end product of subjective evolution to the
fact of an equally monumental but misleading universe of necessary but
not sufficient material phenomena.
*The last 6-line sentence should be carved in gold. I would leave out*
*'microcosmic'  and think twice about  the 'material' figment, leading *
*to a 'physical world' statistically re-evaluated every time when new *
*'information' has been received. Statistically means the arbitrary choice*
*of the boundaries, making the decisions a lie.  *
 Particles change their charge, polarize and depolarize, bind and
dissolve bonds as responses to local conditions which they alone are
directly sensitive to. Those changes are reflected in and reflections
of the global changes which are instantiated at the top level. Our
backstage process changes their backstage process and vice versa, but
you can't translate the backstage changes directly into the front end
appearances without knowing both ends of the translation. That's
because they are ontological opposites - material objects in space on
the front end and perceptual subjects through time on the back end.
*I can appreciate your struggle with the conventional words. *


*John M, (science) agnostic*

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

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