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 everything-list@googlegroups.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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to