On Monday, March 11, 2013 1:52:54 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: > > >> > There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to >> neurochemistry, >> > > Change the brain chemistry and emotions ALWAYS change, change the emotions > and the brain chemistry ALWAYS changes; evidence just doesn't get any > better than that. >
If I open a file on a thin client, data always changes on the server. If I change the right data on the server, the image of the thin client will always change, yet we know for a fact that the server resources are not local to the thin client. > > > only that access to such experience is modulated locally. > > > In other words there is no evidence to support the locality of locality > only that locality is modulated locally. It's crap like that that gives > philosophy a bad name among serious thinkers. > You change my words to what you like, and then ridicule your own words as if they were mine. This actually applies to what we are talking about. You are distorting and misinterpreting my words locally, but what I said is not local to your understanding. You can read the words that I wrote, but you don't know what they mean. > > >Local emotion really doesn't make much sense, as molecular shapes have >> no need of any 'emotional' qualities to interact with other molecular >> shapes. >> > > You're the one who said molecules are conscious not me, so I guess you > think molecules want to mate with other molecules of a certain shape just > like people want to mate with other people of a certain shape. And I remind > you again that this is NOT my idea . > I wouldn't know about the particular nature of molecular experiences, only that they are likely to be the ancestors of our own experiences. You are trying to change the subject though. Your view is that emotion must be local to the brain (neurons? molecules?), so I am trying to ask what role would it possibly serve. How can we justify its existence other than just saying "Evolution did it". > > > 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, > > > Pressure causes the collision of trillions of gas molecules and the > collision of trillions of gas molecules causes pressure. The word > "pressure" is just shorthand for " the interaction of trillions of gas > molecules" and "I" is just shorthand for "the interaction of trillions of > neurons". > You are only seeing half of the picture. If "I" is just shorthand for "the interaction of trillions of neurons" then "the interaction of a single neuron" is also shorthand for "a small fragment of I". Now you just have to see that "I" cannot, in fact, be described at all as the interaction of neurons, but only as the interaction of sub-personal experiences (fragments of "I"). Look at traffic in a city during some event, like 9/11. The patterns of traffic are linked to the event, but not in a trivial rather than meaningful way. You can't understand the experience of 9/11 by looking at traffic patterns in NYC on that day. You can, however, understand 9/11 by listening to the stories of many different individuals who were driving in traffic that day. > >> Why are these inhibitory neurons inhibiting sneezes at some times and not >> others? Why EXACTLY? >> > > Because sometimes the sum total of all those neurons placed the brain in a > net sneeze state and sometimes the sum total does not; and sometimes a > Turing machine is in one state and sometimes it is not. > That just pushes back the threshold of intention one more level. Why would the comparison of sum totals require an illusion of conscious participation to decorate it? > > > 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? >> > > I am not aware of any brain constructed in that way (although there are > some brains that start a sneeze response in the presence of bright light) > but if there were such a brain its operation would not violate the laws of > physics. > We both agree that consciousness does not violate the laws of physics. The difference is that I understand that means that physics itself must include voluntary interaction, and I understand how perceptual relativity blinds us to that fact when investigating reality from a distance. > >> 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? >> > > They say there is no such thing as a stupid question. They're wrong. > You are clearly stating that neurons are evolutionary agents which possess multi-generational wisdom. > > >>>>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. >> > > > Wow what a surprise. > > > 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. >> > > If that's true, if "IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities" then > yes the computer couldn't tell if it was audio or video, but then neither > could you. > I can tell if it has video or audio qualities because I experience them directly with human perception. The computer experiences nothing, so it has to rely on explicit labeling or statistical guesswork to associate it with the right applications. 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 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.
