2011/10/6 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > On Oct 5, 10:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> If you are right then there would be a violation of physical law in > > >> the brain. You have said as much, then denied it. You have said that > > >> neurons firing in the brain can't be just due to a chain of > > >> biochemical events. > > > > > They can be due to a chain of biochemical events, but they also *are* > > > biochemical events, and therefore can influence them intentionally as > > > well as be influenced by them. I don't understand why this is such a > > > controversial ideal. Just think of the way that you actually function > > > right now. Your personal motives driving what *you* do with *your* > > > mind and *your* body. If the mind could be understood just as > > > biochemical events among neurons, then we would have no way to think > > > of our bodies as ours - the brain would not need to think of itself in > > > any other terms other than the biochemical events that it literally > > > is. Why make up some bogus GUI if there is no user? > > > > The mind may not be understandable in terms of biochemical events but > > the observable behaviour of the brain can be. > > Yes, the 3-p physical behaviors that can be observed with our > contemporary instruments can be understood in terms of biochemical > events, but that doesn't mean that they can be modeled accurately or > that those models would be able to produce 1-p experience by > themselves. We can understand the behaviors of an amoeba in terms of > biochemical events but that doesn't mean we can tell which direction > it's going to move in. > > > > > >>That would mean that, somewhere, a neuron fires > > >> where examination of its physical state would suggest that it should > > >> not fire. > > > > > I guess you are never going to get tired of me correcting this > > > factually incorrect assumption. > > > > > The physical state of a neuron only suggests whether it is firing or > > > not firing at the moment - not the circumstances under which it might > > > fire. If you examine neurons in someone's amygdala, how is that going > > > to tell you whether or not they are going to play poker next week or > > > not? If the neurons feel like firing, does a casino appear? > > > > Whether a neuron in the amygdala or anywhere else fires depends on its > > present state, inputs from the neurons with which it interfaces and > > other aspects of its environment including things such as temperature, > > pH and ion concentrations. If the person thinks about gambling, that > > changes the inputs to the neuron and causes it to fire. It can't fire > > without any physical change. It can't fire without any physical > > change. It can't fire without any physical change. > > "If the person thinks about gambling, that changes the inputs..." > > Start there. If a person thinks... means that they are initiating the > physical change with their thought.
Likewise for a program running on a computer... The physical attributes of the cpu are modified by the program... The computer is universal and can run whatever program is input, yet, when running a particular program it is it that drives what happens, it is the high level that drives the change. Yet if inspecting how a CPU works, I can build another one that will output the same with the same program... without knowing per se what the program was. > Their thought is the > electromagnetic change which drives the physical change. The thought > or intention is the signifying sensorimotive view, the electomagnetic > view is a-signifying voltage, charge, detection of ligands, etc. It is > bidirectional so that the reason for firing can be driven by the > biochemistry, or by the content of a person's mind. This is just > common sense, it's not disputable without sophistry. > > Here's how I think it might work: You can be excited because you > decide to think about something that excites you, or you can ingest a > stimulant drug and you will become excited in general and that > excitement will lead your mind by the nose to the subjects that most > excite it. They are the same thing but going in opposite directions. > > Think of it as induction: > > Imagine that this works like an electric rectifier (http:// > electrapk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/half-wave-rectifier-with- > transformer.jpg<http://electrapk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/half-wave-rectifier-with-%0Atransformer.jpg>) > except that instead of electric current generating a > magnetic field through a coil which pushes or pulls the magnetic force > within the other coil - the brain's electromagnetic field is pushing > to and/or pulling from changes in the sensorimotive experience. The > difference though is that with a rectifier, it is the identical > physical ontology which is mirrored in parallel (electromagnetic :||: > magnetic-electric) whereas in sensorimotive *the ontology is > perpendicular* (meaning that what it actually is can only be > *experiences linked together through time*, not *objects separated > across space*), so there are four mirrorings: > > electromagnetic :||: sensorimotive (3SI) - brain changes induce > feelings > sensorimotive :||: electromagnetic (1SI) - feelings induce brain > changes > magnetic-electric :||: motive-sensory (3MI) - mechanical actions > induce involuntary reactions > and motive-sensory :||: magnetic-electric (1MI) - voluntary actions > induce mechanical actions > > Note that the motive inductions are about projecting to and from the > brain, body and it's environments while sensory inductions are about > receiving sense from the experiences which can be consciously decoded > from the environment, body, and mind. Think cell/body+dendrites vs > axons, brain vs spinal cord, head vs tail. Many vs one. Motive > projects intention actively through obstacles and objects like a > magnet pulls iron filings into shapes and magnetizes other iron > objects to make them magnets. Sense interprets and experiences, > detecting though analog and metaphor, reproducing local versions of > remote phenomena. > > In the objective sensory induction (3SI) 3-p electromagnetic changes > (cocaine hydrochloride binds at dopamine sites) induce complementary > changes in the corresponding 1-p sensory fields, (the psyche as a > whole is compelled to feel animated and driven). > > In the subjective sensory induction (1SI) 1-p sensory events (guy > thinks about skydiving while getting sexual with the girlfriend) > induces change in 3-p electomagnetic fields (testosterone, dopamine, > and epinephrine are released). > > Both of these are cases where feelings and physical changes are > produced (either with electromagnetic cocaine binding or sensorimotive > fantasy), but I'm calling it Sensory Induction in either case because > the significance of both; the effect that we are producing is > ultimately a conscious experience. If it were not for the possibility > of the conscious experience, we wouldn't care about the effect of > cocaine on the brain any more than we would chalk dust. It wouldn't > matter. > > In the case of subjective motor induction (1MI), 1-p motives and > intentions induce the electromagnetic changes in the corresponding > neural pathways from the brain down the spinal cord to the efferent > nerves to the muscles which move the finger actively. This need not > involve conscious thought or sense-making at all. It is a dumb command > which can be simulated in the muscle or the brain reflexively with a > live electrode or TMS. That reflex automatic response would be: > Objective motor induction (3MI). > > So there is no magic, it's just that experiences over time cannot be > translated directly into objects across space. They are perpendicular > ontologies, but they share a common sense. They share a where and when > but the who and why doesn't have to care about the what and how, and > the what and how aren't even aware of the who and why. Them > materialist monist position is blind to 1-p causality, so it looks > like magic that a person can contract the muscles in their arm just by > doing it. It has no language for who or why, so it fails again and > again, struggling in vein to find some pseudo-why hidden behind the > complexity of the what and how. I am giving you a language to > transform that problem into a new and exotic hemisphere of cosmology, > which has soul or psyche, but it is NOT soul or anima. It is > sensorimotive phenomenology. > > 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@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.