On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> who would vow never to change their views?
>

The religious faithful.

>> By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions are
>> met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever the
>> sun goes down a traffic jam happens and there has never been a single
>> recorded instance of this not happening then the sun going down and traffic
>> jams are inextricably linked together.
>>
>
> > But you can see that's a fallacy just by understanding that obviously we
> cannot cause the Sun to go down by making a traffic jam.
>

"Obviously" be damned! If we lived in a universe where without exception
every single time there was a traffic jam then "obviously" the laws of
physics and the orbital mechanics of the solar system would have to be
radically different from what they are in this universe. And if we don't
have a good theory to explain how it could be that traffic jams could
effect the rotation of the Earth that's just too bad but the universe
doesn't care if we understand how it works or not and our lack of
understanding would not change the fact that the every single time a
traffic jam happens the sun goes down.


 >> we know that whenever there is a change in brain chemistry there is
>> ALWAYS a change in consciousness and whenever there is a change in
>> consciousness there is ALWAYS a change in brain chemistry, so consciousness
>> and chemistry are also inextricably linked together.
>>
>
> No.
>

NO? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN "NO"?!!

 > they are opposite in every way - because they are literally the opposite
> side of each other.
>

If whenever X happens Y happens and whenever X does not happen Y never
happens then X causes Y, it's what the word "causes" means for goodness
sake.


> > Computers are made of atoms and molecules just like humans are,
>>
>
> > No, they are made of different molecules entirely. Which is why we plug
> them into electric current rather than feeding them cheeseburgers.
>

So you think carbon is inherently more conscious than silicon and
hydrocarbons are more conscious than silicon-dioxide. That's just dumb.

> If my brain changed my mind,
>

In other words if your brain started to do things differently.

> then it would be an involuntary change.
>

I have no idea what that means, I do know that the mind is what the brain
does and if it started to do things differently it did so for a reason, a
new chemical introduced into your bloodstream that made it past the blood
brain barrier for example, or the brain started doing things differently
for no reason at all, in other words random.

>> If you change your mind, that is to say if your brain changes what it is
>> doing, then your brain chemistry changes. And if your brain chemistry
>> changes then you change your mind. Get it?
>>
>
> > Ahhh, so your brain changes its own chemistry


Obviously.


> > The mind knows nothing about the brain and the brain knows nothing about
> the mind.
>

That depends on the mind, but it is true that "fast" knows nothing about
"racing car".

> We have sub-personal, or sub-conscious, instinctual, physiological drives
>

The subconscious?? Why are you talking about the aspect of our mind not
involved in consciousness? I thought you said the only important thing is
consciousness!

>> Please give me experimental evidence of one chemical reaction in the
>> brain that is not controlled by a impersonal law of physics.
>>
>
> > Any chemical reaction which is involved in my deciding to hold in a
> sneeze.
>

There would be no deciding to do if foreign particles didn't trigger
release of histamines which irritate nerve cells in the nose and send a
signal to the brain. That signal is excitatory pushing in the direction of
a sneeze, and for every excitatory signal there is almost always a
inhibitory signal saying not to do it, one signal will be stronger than the
other so you will either sneeze or not. Should we inform CERN that pollen
does not obey the laws of physics, or histamines?

> Receiver theories of consciousness are not my invention, and have been
> around longer than Newtonian physics.


Yes, and that is an excellent reason for thinking they're bullshit, just
like many ideas from the pre-scientific era.

> A computer can be programmed to detect what it is programmed to detect.
> It has no idea if your microphone is providing it with audio input - input
> is input. It knows which jack and what voltage fluctuations are present
> there - that's all it knows.
>

Then why does the computer display a "unrecognized format" error message
when they are plugged in wrong but not when they are connected correctly?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to