2011/10/7 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > On Oct 6, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > It's also difficult to tell exactly which way a leaf in the wind will > > move. The leaf may have qualia: > > Theoretically it may, but I don't think so. If it's connected to the > tree it might have qualia, and the individual cells might have qualia, > but it seems like once it's detached from the tree, it loses it's high > level context. > > >it is something-it-is-like to be a > > leaf, and the qualia may differ depending on whether the leaf goes > > left or right. As with a brain, the leaf does not break any physical > > laws and its behaviour can be completely described in terms of > > physical processes, but such a description would leave out an > > important part of the picture, the subjectivity. While it may be > > correct to say that the leaf moves to the right because it wants to > > move to the right, since moving to the right is associated with > > right-moving willfulness, this does not mean that the qualia have a > > causal effect on its behaviour. > > No because if the wind is also pushing other inanimate objects in the > same direction and the leaf never resists that, then we can assume > that it has no ability to choose it's direction. > > >A causal effect of the qualia on the > > leaf's behaviour would mean that the leaf moves contrary to physical > > laws, confounding scientists by moving to the right when the forces on > > it suggest it should move to the left. It's similar with the brain: a > > direct causal effect of qualia on behaviour would mean that neurons > > fire when their physical state would suggest that they not fire. > > You aren't hearing me, so I am going to start counting how many times > I answer your false assertion - even though it's probably been at > least 5 or 6 times, I'll start the countdown at ten, and at 0, I'm not > going to answer this question again from you. > > 10: There is no such thing as a physical state which suggests whether > a neuron that can fire (ie, has repolarized, replenished, or otherwise > recovered from it's last firing) actually will fire. You can induce it > to fire manually, but left to it's own devices, you can't say that a > neuron which triggers a voluntary movement is going to fire without > knowing when the person whose arm it is decides to move it. You can > look at every nerve in my body right now and not know whether I will > be standing or sitting in one hour's time. There is no physical law > whatsoever that has an opinion one way or the other either way. >
That's you who do not understand, because your assertion : "You can look at every nerve in my body right now and not know whether I will be standing or sitting in one hour's time." simply ignore the *external input*. Without it, you can't, with an accurate mode + external stimuli you can. The model **can't** predict external input, if it could that would only means the model is not about the brain only but about the brain + the entire environment. > > >I'm > > sorry that you don't like this, > > It's not that I don't like it, it's just that I see that you are wrong > about it yet you want me to treat it as a plausible theisis. The > consequences of your view is that we can't tell the difference between > a living protozoa and a hairy bubble. It's sophistry. You see a salmon > swim upstream, does that not mean they 'move contrary to physical > laws'? How does the salmon do that? Is it magic? Salmon cannot exist. > Such a thing would confound scientists! > > Life is ordinary on this planet. It uses the laws of physics for it's > own purposes which may or may not relate to physical existence. I'm > sorry that you don't like that, but in a contest between theory and > reality, reality always wins. It doesn't matter if you don't > understand it, you have my condolences, but I do understand it and I'm > telling you that it is for that reason that I am certain your view is > factually less complete than mine. My view includes your view, but > your view ignores mine. > > > but it is what it would mean if the > > relationship between qualia and physical activity were bidirectional > > rather than the qualia being supervenient. > > If qualia were not bidirectional, you could not read or write. > > Craig > > -- > 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. > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.