you wrote quite a 'study' to Craig. May I extract some sentences for
my reflections?
(I delete the entire discussion here)
John M

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg <>
> wrote:
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
> ===============================

*How do my vocal cords know to produce output relating **to the newspaper?
There must be *some* causal chain, **otherwise it would be magic*....
*"Do they indeed? because we don't know about anything else to do the job
(so far)?  BTW "MAGIC" is a pretty good word.*
*If the rest of my brain receives the normal electrochemical stimuli from
the replaced part how could it know that **anything had changed?
You would have to say that the visual cortex has some non-physical influence
on the rest of the brain, but no such effect has ever been observed. What
has been observed is that neurons fire in response to the *
*electrochemical signals from the other neurons with which they interface.*
*"Does it KNOW at all?"IMO the brain is a TOOL acting for "mentality"
(whatever that may be) in ways explained according to our so far detected
conventional sciences. *
*How did they explai electrical, or EM phenomena BEFORE Galvani? or atomic
fission before M. Curie? *
* If there is a **physical cause then we can explain why and predict when **a
neuron will fire; if there is not we can't....That is contrary to science,
by definition.*
*A 'physical' cause? Are we omniscient to know them all? I agree: that would
be contrary to (conventional?) science, not only by definition.*
*You claim the putative non-physical influence is ubiquitous in living
cells, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that it would have been
observed, overturning **all of science. But it has never been observed*.
Right on
*The choosing and understanding, everything to do with **consciousness,
cognition and free will, is *as a result of* **the mechanistic neural
activity. That is the conventional *
*scientific view.*
*It may well be. I am still at a loss how the physical (electrical) or
tissue measurements can explain mental effects (incl. consciousness, free
will, emotions etc. as they occur. The "hard problem" is still hard. *
*to other parts: "observable" in our poor understanding and explanatory
power of the so far discovered knowledge? *
*Explained by those incomplete causes we SO FAR think we detected? We have a
very poor view of nature, the infinite complexity and epistemologically we
get enrichment all the time. *
*Would you abide by a "science" that ignores the 'rest of it' we may learn
in the future and explains everything on the level of today's total
informative knowledge-base? *
*Please, pardon me for my agnostic view I proudly believe in the power of *
*"I dunno". *

*John M*

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to