On Oct 4, 8:54 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
It's inside (and 'throughside') of matter. It doesn't ex-ist, it
insists. Reproducing the external behaviors won't help, any more than
attaching marionette strings to a cadaver would bring a person back to
I think that all change has an experience associated with it. This is
in fact what energy is; an experience of perception over time. The
ability to experience change first hand carries with it, by extension,
the ability to experience certain kinds of change second hand. We are
made of matter, so we can relate to physical changes - a bowling ball
striking pins, a bomb going off, etc. We are made of biological cells
so we can relate to biological changes, but non-biological matter
cannot experience biological changes. Bowling balls don't feel like
they are alive.
> > 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...
Do the same thing meaning idle in the driveway, sure. To copy a driver
is something else entirely. You still can't predict where either
driver is going to take the car from looking that the mechanics of the
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