On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > What I am saying though is that even a perfect correlation does not mean > direct causation. Everyone has a brain and a heart, but that doesn't mean > the brain causes the heart. >
Up to now whenever we observe a fully functioning human brain we also observe a human heart connected to it, in fact historically the primary method for determining if a person is dead is checking for a heartbeat to see if that organ is still working. > > If I said that the electronics of your television must be linked to the > plot of the TV series you are watching, would you still not understand? > If you said the TV show came from Santa Clauses Workshop and then refused to say exactly what is going on at Santa's home I would not understand because there would be nothing there to understand. > Would you insist that there must be some plot generating component in > your TV set? > If whenever I changed the circuitry of the TV set the characters on the TV not only acted differently but felt differently then yes the only logical conclusion is that there is a plot generating and more important a emotion generating component in the TV set >>> 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. >> > > > And it is the word 'causes' which is completely wrong when applied to > the explanatory gap. > Nobody, absolutely positively nobody would try to make the case that explaining something and saying what caused it was “literally the opposite side of each other” unless logic did not support their views and renouncing logic was less painful than renouncing those views. > > A glass of water happens every time there is water in a glass. > Yes. > >That doesn't mean the water causes the glass or the glass causes the > water. > This is getting silly. Water in a glass causes a glass of water. > > I think that living cells are more conscious than anything which is not > a living cell. > You use that word "living" as if it's a talisman to ward off the evil forces of physics, but biologists can't even agree on what life means and have never even found a hint that life doesn't obey the same exact laws of physics that non-life does. And there isn't even a sharp dividing line between life and non life; Is a virus alive? Well sort of. > > If you can get silicon dioxide to make a living cell, then you might > have a point > If you can get a living cell to make a microprocessor then you might have a point. > >>> If my brain changed my mind, >>> >> >> >>In other words if your brain started to do things differently. >> > > > Differently than what? > Different from what it was before. > > My brain changes my mind all the time. > Yes, and your brain chemistry changes all the time too. > >Every morning my brain wakes me up. > Just like clockwork, clocks are another mechanism that operates according to the laws of physics. > > I am asleep and am awakened at a time deemed appropriate by my brain. > Just like clockwork, clocks are another mechanism that operates according to the laws of physics. > > I don't have a choice when my brain wakes me up in the morning. > OK, so there are things that Craig Weinberg's brain does that Craig Weinberg CANNOT control but that CAN control Craig Weinberg. How in the world does that strengthen your point? > >> 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. >> > > >? > Which word didn't you understand? > > The subconscious is still consciousness > Yeah yeah I've heard it all before, and as I've also said before nobody, absolutely positively nobody would try to make the case that X is equal to not X unless logic did not support their views and renouncing logic was less painful than renouncing those views. > >>>> 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? >> > > >Where are these inhibitory signals coming from? Mars? > No not Mars nor are they transmitted from a radio station at Santa Claus's Workshop, they come from other inhibitory neurons strictly obeying all the laws of physics in a bone box all resting on your shoulders. > > the 'laws of physics' have no opinion whatsoever if you hold in your > sneeze or not. > But a brain that takes action to avoid sneezing conforms to the laws of physics and so does a brain that takes action to sneeze all the time, it all depends on how the brain is constructed and there are many ways to do that, all of which which obey the laws of physics. > > What is it that is providing these inhibitory signals in some situations > and not others? > Evolution has determined that every action involves both excitatory and inhibitory neurons because, depending on the circumstances, sometimes action X is the wise thing to do to get genes into the next generation and sometimes it is not. > > How does your brain know the difference between a funeral and a carnival? > One has a stiff and the other has cotton candy. > >>Then why does the computer display a "unrecognized format" error message >> when they are plugged in wrong but not when they are connected correctly? >> >> > > Because it is expecting a particular data format. > > So you admit you were wrong and a computer CAN tell if you plug the output of a video camera into the audio input. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.