On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If a motor neuron involved in voluntary activity fires where you would not
> >> predict it would fire given its internal state and the inputs then it is
> >> *by definition* acting contrary to physical law.
> > Every firing of motor neurons involved in voluntarily activity fires
> > where you would not predict, given that the internal state provides no
> > prediction and that the inputs are determined by the subject and
> > therefore unknowable to anyone outside of the subject.
> The internal state of the neuron determines its sensitivity to inputs.
> The internal state is complex but it includes things such as the
> membrane potential, the intracellular ion concentrations, the number,
> type and location of ion channels, to what extent the synaptic
> vesicles have filled with neurotransmitter, and multiple other
> factors. The inputs consist of every environmental factor that might
> potentially affect the neuron such as the extracellular ionic
> concentrations, pH, temperature, synaptic connections, concentration
> of neurotransmitter in the synapse, concentration of enzymes which
> break down neurotransmitter and so on.
Not one of those things determines whether or not a given neuron
associated with voluntary action will fire. It is the same thing as
talking about the drive shaft, CV boot, transmission, fuel line, spark
plugs, and paint job as determining when and where an automobile goes.
It's the same as saying that the TV remote control uses you to change
the channel instead of the other way around.
> If the neuron fires where
> consideration of these factors would lead to a prediction that it
> should not fire then that is by definition the neuron acting contrary
> to physical law.
There is no such thing as a factor which leads to a prediction of when
efferent nerves will fire. Even if you say that the subject is just
regions of the brain, it is still those regions, those tissues and
neurons which *decide* to fire as a first cause - without any
deterministic precursor that could ever be predicted with any degree
of accuracy without access to the private subjective content of the
decision process. Seeing a nerve fire doesn't tell you when it's going
to fire again, just as seeing a car make a left turn doesn't tell you
what direction it's going to turn after that.
>How else would you define it?
I keep telling you - it's a bidirectional sensorimitive-
electromagnetic induction. That is exactly what it is. That is the
actual reality of what is going on. If you had to make the universe
from scratch, and you left out the sensorimotive part, you would have
nothing but meaningless matter moving around with no possibility of
awareness of anything. It's just hard for some people to realize that
their own naive perception is actually a phenomenon that has to exist
somewhere in the Cosmos - but what else could it be? Not part of the
Cosmos? What does that even mean? It's actually crazily
anthropomorphic to imagine that somehow everything we can measure has
reality yet the measurer himself is just some ephiphenomal phantom.
Everything in the universe is real except what's in our natural
ordinary experience? That's moronic.
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