What does that have to do with the heart and brain being intimately connected without causing each others function? > > >> > 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. > Even if you had lived every day of your life in Santa's Workshop? > > > 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. > That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just a sentimental prejudice. There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to neurochemistry, only that access to such experience is modulated locally. Local emotion really doesn't make much sense, as molecular shapes have no need of any 'emotional' qualities to interact with other molecular shapes. > >>> 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. > Or if it they were simply relating the truth. > > >> > 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. > So water can control whether or not the glass is cracked? This is too easy. You're not even thinking anymore, you're just flailing and spitting. > > >> > 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 > Not at all. I use it only to recognize that a living cell is different than a dead cell. Biology applies to living cells. > , 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. > Nevertheless, the division between life and non-life remains the single most important and obvious discernment that we will ever encounter as human beings. > > >> > 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. > We already have. > > >> >>> 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. > Before what? > > >> > My brain changes my mind all the time. >> > > Yes, and your brain chemistry changes all the time too. > That's what I'm saying. My brain chemistry changes my mind all the time. > > >> >Every morning my brain wakes me up. >> > > Just like clockwork, clocks are another mechanism that operates according > to the laws of physics. > Not as simple as a clock, no. My brain wakes me up according to all kinds of hormonal, photological, and psychological cues. Generally I wake up exactly when I need to without having to set the alarm, but I set it anyhow. > > >> > 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. > No, not at all like a clock. The time varies from day to day. > > >> > 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? > My point has always been that control passes in both directions. I control my brain to an extent, my brain controls me to an extent, and those extents can change through my participation. > > >> >> 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 words are fine, it's how they are put together that doesn't make sense to me. Why do you keep talking about something "doing something differently"? Nothing is doing anything differently in my view. > > >> > 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. > Why do you think that you know something about what people think? > > >> >>>> 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. > Why are these inhibitory neurons inhibiting sneezes at some times and not others? Why EXACTLY? > > >> > 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. > Are you claiming that some brains are constructed physically not to sneeze in rooms where stained glass is present? > > >> > 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. > So these neurons are omniscient? > > >> > How does your brain know the difference between a funeral and a >> carnival? >> > > One has a stiff and the other has cotton candy. > You could have a funeral without a cadaver, and it could have a coffin filled with cotton candy and get the same result, so no, that is not the difference. > > >> >>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. > No, of course not. Why would I admit that I am wrong when I am obviously correct. A data format is a schema of bits and bytes. It represents the encoding protocols which are required to be implemented for decoding. IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities. There could be a hundred different file formats of the same damn song which will all get an "unrecognized format" error. You are out on your own here - I don't think that your position makes sense to anyone familiar with computer files and digital sampling. Craig > > 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 email@example.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.