On 21.10.2012 10:05 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
<whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:


I don't think that is true. The other way around makes just as much
sense of not more: Reading Chinese is a simple behavior which
drives the behavior of billions of atoms to do a complex
interaction. To me, it has to be both bottom-up and top-down. It
seems completely arbitrary prejudice to presume one over the other
just because we think that we understand the bottom-up so well.

Once you can see how it is the case that it must be both bottom-up
and top-down at the same time, the next step is to see that there
is no possibility for it to be a cause-effect relationship, but
rather a dual aspect ontological relation. Nothing is translating
the functions of neurons into a Cartesian theater of experience -
there is nowhere to put it in the tissue of the brain and there is
no evidence of a translation from neural protocols to sensorimotive
protocols - they are clearly the same thing.

If there is a top-down effect of the mind on the atoms then there we
would expect some scientific evidence of this. Evidence would

Scientific evidence, in my view, is the existence of science. Do you mean that for example scientific books have assembled themselves from atoms according to the M-theory?


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