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

> 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.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to