Stathis, 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 <stath...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > 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". * *Regards* *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 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.
