On Oct 28, 10:59 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/10/28 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > On Oct 28, 8:10 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Let's say that I watch a football game on TV and describe what I see. > > > > Is there now a direct connection between my larynx and a football > > > > field somewhere? What is this connection made of? Is this the kind of > > > > purely semantic-philosophical 'connection' you are talking about being > > > > what connects the retina and larynx? > > > > There is a causal connection between your larynx and the football field, > > since what happens on the football field affects your larynx. > > > Any such connection is one that is only inferred. What happens on the > > football field only affects your larynx if you decide to talk about > > it. > > > If it did not, you could not describe what happened on the football > > field. You cannot describe a football game if the light from it has > > not reached you, for example, since information cannot get to you > > faster than light. > > > You could listen to it on the radio or read about it in the newspaper. > > You could invent an imaginary game and describe it in intricate > > detail. > > > > >> How does "the necessity of neurons to respond to their environment" go > > > >> against determinism? > > > > > Because living cells must confront unanticipated and novel > > > > circumstances in their environment which cannot be determined, nor can > > > > the responses be determined in advance. Inorganic molecules don't care > > > > if they survive or not so their interactions are more deterministic > > > > and passive. > > > > The environment can provide a rich variety of inputs to an entity but > > that does not mean that the entity must be programmed to respond differently > > to every input. > > > Then that means that it isn't deterministic. > > It is. Every part of it is determined exactly from input + rules,
You are assuming that input exists independently of the subject. I don't. A black and white TV has no capacity to ever show color broadcasts, so that the all of it's inputs can only be rendered in monochrome. A living organism, unlike a TV, can learn and adapt by itself. It can choose what to foster and what to avoid. It is not just input + rules against a dumb lookup table, it is volition and affinity. It is determined by the organism itself as well as the environment. > what isn't > (from the point of view of the model) is the environment, that has been said > *from the beginning of the discussion*. We don't model the environment, and > we don't have to, since what we want is connect the model to the > environment, we don't want to model the universe *but a brain* (in the > though experiment) One of the main purposes of the brain is to model the environment, just as the purpose of a TV set is to provide TV programs. Without factoring that in, any model of the brain is a waste of time. You cannot separate the brain from the universe which is created through that brain. > > > For example, a neuron may see see a concentration of dopamine > > molecules that varies over a trillionfold range, but it has only two > > responses: depolarise its membrane if the concentration is above a > > certain threshold, don't if it isn't. The neuron does not know what > > the dopamine concentration is going to be ahead of time, but it looks > > at what it is and responds according to this algorithm. > > > It has to be able to tell the difference between dopamine and every > > other molecule in the body first. It's outrageously simplistic to say > > that the neuron can only respond to this binary algorithm It's like > > saying that we can respond to our environment by living or dying. > > You are beating around the bush... You do straw man arguments all the times. > > "A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based > *on misrepresentation of an opponent's position*" I think that your position is actually that simplistic though. I'm describing it in another case to expose that reductionism, but I'm not trying to misrepresent it. Craig -- 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.