On Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:45:07 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >> I object to the idea that consciousness will cause a brain or other
> >> machine to behave in a way not predictable by purely physical laws.
> >> Some people, like Craig Weinberg, seem to believe that this is
> >> possible but it is contrary to all science. This applies even if the
> >> whole universe is really just a simulation, because what we observe is
> >> at the level of the simulation.
> > That is not what I believe at all. I have corrected you and others on
> > many times but you won't hear it. Nothing unusual needs to happen in the
> > brain for ordinary consciousness to take place, it's just that physics
> > nothing to say about whether billions of synapses will suddenly begin
> > in complex synchronized patterns or not. Physics doesn't care. Can
> > fire when conditions are right? Yes. Can our thoughts and intentions
> > directly control conditions in the brain? YES. Of course. Obviously.
> > Otherwise we wouldn't care any more about the human brain than we would
> > wasps nest. It's not that physics needs to be amended, it is that
> > is part of physics, and physics is part of experience.
> If physics cannot predict even in theory when the neurons will fire
> then *by definition* the neurons behave contrary to physics.
If the neurons fire based on the participation of a personal identity in
response to events in a person's life, then how could physics predict them
without predicting a person's entire life?
> Stathis Papaioannou
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at