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 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