2011/10/4 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The ion channel only opens when the ligand binds. The ligand only
> > binds if it is present in the synapse. It is only present in the
> > synapse when the presynaptic neuron fires. And so on.
> It's the 'and so on' where your explanation breaks down. You are
> arbitrarily denying the top down, semantic, subjective participation
> as a cause. There is no presynaptic neuron prior to the introduction
> of the thought of gambling.
And where is the thought then ? Reading you, it exists outside of the brain
matter... If it is the brain matter, then all the external observable is all
there is to it, reproducing the external behaviours will reproduce qualia.
> The thought is the firing of many neurons.
> They are the same thing, except that the reason they are firing is
> because of the subject choosing to realize a particular motivation (to
> think about something or move a mouse, etc). There is no neurological
> reason why those neurons would fire. They would not otherwise fire at
> that particular time.
> >This whole
> > process is associated with an experience, but it is a completely
> > mechanical process.
> Starting a car initiates a mechanical process, and driving a car
> executes a mechanical process, but without the driver choosing to
> start the car and use the steering wheel and pedals to correspond with
> their subjective perception and motivation, the car doesn't do
> anything but idle. You cannot predict where a car is going to go based
> on an auto mechanics examination of the car.
No, but I can build a copy of the car which will do the same as the car
provided a driver drives it...
> I can argue this point
> all day, every day. I can give you different examples, describe it in
> different ways, but I can't make you see what you are missing. I know
> exactly your position. You think that if you look at atoms they cannot
> do anything except what we expect any generic atom to do, and since
> everything is made of atoms, then everything can only be an
> elaboration of those probabilities. I get that. You don't need to
> restate your position to me ever again. You are quite clear in what
> you are saying. I'm telling you that it's medieval compared to what
> I'm talking about.
> You aren't seeing that atoms respond to their environment - they have
> charge and make bonds, and that the environment can change on a macro
> scale for macro scale reasons just as well as the macro scale can be
> changed for microcosmic reasons. They are the same thing. Just as I am
> choosing these letters to make up these words because I have a
> sentence in mind that I want to write, not because my fingers have no
> choice but to hit these keys to satisfy some chemical or physical law.
> >The equivalent is my example of the door: it opens
> > because someone turns the key and pushes it. If it had qualia it may
> > also be accurate to say that it opens because it wants to open, but
> > since we can't see the qualia they can't have a causal effect on the
> > door.
> Someone turns the key and pushes it because they want to. It is their
> qualia that has a causal effect on the door and *nothing else*. The
> intentionality of the subject *uses* the neurons of the brain, which
> use the afferent nerves down the spine, which uses the muscle tissue
> to contract, which moves the arm connected to the hand that holds the
> key and articulates the turning and opens the door which satisfies the
> sensory>motive>motive>motor>motor>motor>sensory chain of custody. The
> door opens because the person sees the door (visual sense),
> understands how it works and that they have the key (cognitive sense),
> wants to unlock it (motive intent, emotional sense), is able to use
> their brain, spinal cord, arm, hand, and key as a single coordinated
> instrument (motive>motive>motor>fine motor>motor extension) to satisfy
> their desire to feel and see that the door is open (sensory) and to
> pass through the door (motor).
> Yes, I understand that you can look at it the other way and say that
> since it it the brain that stimulates and coordinates the arm, and it
> is the brain's activity that causes that, and that the neurons in the
> brain cause that, and that the ion channels, membrane potentials,
> neurotransmitter molecules, and atoms that cause all of that, then you
> should be able to calculate from the positions of all of that
> microcosmic phenomana that the door will open. But it doesn't work
> that way. The microcosmos doesn't know what a door is. It has a very
> complex job to do already in it's own biochemical level of the
> universe. Just as we have no direct awareness of what our DNA is
> doing, our tissues don't know who we are or why we want to open the
> door. Only we know that.
> > If they could we would see the door opening by itself and we
> > would be amazed. It's the same with the neuron: if the associated
> > qualia had a causal effect on matter we would see neurons firing in
> > the absence of stimuli, which would be amazing.
> The qualia is the stimuli. Why else do you think it's there? What
> would be the point of qualia if not to exert an influence on the
> choices we make?
> > Again, it's not that it's wrong to say that the neurons fired in the
> > amygdala because the person thought about gambling, it's that the
> > third person observable behaviour of the neurons can be entirely
> > explained and predicted without any reference to qualia.
> They cannot be predicted any more than an auto mechanic can predict
> where a car is going to go. They can explain the mechanism's
> superficial function, but they can't make sense of the purpose - the
> sense or motive. We can find only what and how and where in the
> neuron, not the who and the why and the when. You need all six to
> really 'explain' or predict.
> >If the
> > neurons responded directly to qualia they would be observed to do
> > miraculous things and it may not be possible to predict or model their
> > behaviour.
> They do respond directly to qualia. Some people do feel that life and
> free will is miraculous, that's up to you - because you can choose
> your opinion and your brain will follow your lead. You are not only a
> puppet of your neurology, not completely, or you could not even
> question it in the first place because non-determinism would be
> inconceivable. It's not inconceivable to me. It's a clear and obvious
> as these letters I'm choosing to type here and you are choosing to
> 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
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at