On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 10/2/2011 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannou<stath...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
> >> cause, since thoughts are not an observable cause. A neuroscientist
> >> would see neurons firing apparently for no reason, violating physical
> >> laws.
> > Thoughts are observable to the thinker. No physical laws are violated.
> > When a person thinks of gambling, the associated neurons fire for that
> > reason. The firings have a proximate cause - changes in voltage or
> > polarity, etc, but those phenomena also are activated because the
> > person who they are part of thinks of gambling. Both the thought and
> > the mechanism are part of the same thing, a thing which has it's only
> > existence as the dualistic relation between the two.
> If they are part of the same thing, then it is presumptuous to say one causes 
> the other.  
> One might at well say the neurons firing caused the thought of gambling - and 
> in fact that
> is what Stathis is saying and for the very good reason that a little 
> electrical
> stimulation, that has no "thought" or "sensorimotive" correlate, can cause 
> both neurons
> firing AND their correlated thoughts.  But thoughts cannot cause the 
> electrical stimulator
> to fire.  So it is *not* bidirectional.

What do you mean? Thoughts *do* cause an electrical detector to fire.
That's what an MRI shows. You could use any kind of electrical probe
or sensor instead as long as it is sufficiently sensitive to detect
the ordinary firing of a neuron. That's how it's possible to have
thought-driven computers.


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