I think that the distinction is qualitative. To the inorganic world, everything is inorganic. The entire molecular level is likely blind to meta-molecular (bio-cellular) levels of simplicity. Certain molecules, through their own discovery or fate/destiny promoted themselves to a genetic sense and motive - or they were promoted--- on the lower levels, I suggest that free-will and determinism are not yet very different. Part of the promotion is the push toward differentiation. Each level of qualitative promotion > more privacy > more temporal caching = broader range of sensitivity frequencies > higher quality of sense > more strategic foresight > higher quality motive = more degrees of freedom, initiative, and creativity. The key is the idea of higher octaves of simplicity - not just a sleeker design but a legitimately higher order based on larger primitives. The cell is not a collection of molecules. Molecules don't know what role they play in the cell necessarily, but the cell's experiences can now operate through molecular experiences. A new top-down conversation has begun - at least existentially new...the origin of this conversation is outside of time. It runs retro and teleo from eternity. To recap then, the difference between non-living and living is only visible to the living. Biological units are vastly larger and slower, more vulnerable in a thousand ways than molecular units, but they are a sign of a nested relation of experiences. The experience that is associated with the cell (and this is tricky because it is not ultimately 'the cell's experience', like our lives are not 'our body's experience') has 'leveled up' from the inorganic, and enjoys a richer, more wonderful/awful range of sensitivities - which is the purpose of the universe (or at least the half of the universe that can have a purpose). > >> Please show one piece of evidence demonstrating that a physical > >> process occurs in the brain that cannot be completely explained as > >> caused by another physical process. Note that it isn't good enough to > >> point to complex behaviour and say "in there somewhere". > > > > > > Laughing at a joke demonstrates that semantic content causes physical > > responses. Any activity in the brain which relates to anything in the > world > > or the mind has nothing to do with neurochemistry. Physical processes > can > > induce experiences, but only because experiences are a priori part of > the > > cosmos. There is nothing about the physical processes which you > recognize > > which could possibly relate laughter to a joke, or anger to an > injustice, > > etc. There is no way for your physics of the brain to represent anything > > except the brain. > > The claim is that the physics explains all of the physical activity. That's tautological. Economics explains all of the economic activity. That doesn't mean that a person can be understood by their economic transactions alone. > A > door does not open unless someone or something pushes it, whether it's > a person, a gust of wind, the reaction from a decaying radioisotope > in the wood, or whatever. If the door is a little one inside the brain > that does NOT mean it opens without any identifiable physical cause. > But all physical causes are thought to originate in quantum fluctuations from within. Those fluctuations are known to be probabilistic and self-entangling. > If the little door opens in response to a joke it is because the > physical manifestations of the joke (sound waves) cause some other > physical process which makes it open. It does NOT open because the > joke just magically makes it open, which is what would appear to > happen if consciousness had a direct causal effect on matter. > I understand exactly what you think that I don't understand, but you're wasting your time. I understand your position completely. Your view is that the joke is merely the decoded set of neurological patterns associated with whatever processed vibrations or collisions of the sense organs that have introduced the encoded patterns to your body. You think that, like a computer, there is a code input and an evolutionarily programmed response which generates an output. What I am saying is that model could work in theory, but in reality, that is not at all what is happening with the nervous system or our awareness. What is happening is both simpler and more complex but you have to begin by throwing out the assumption that anything is ever decoded by the brain into an experience. There is no decoder, and none is possible. That would be like installing a flat screen TV inside an abacus, and then building eyes in the abacus to see the TV. The abacus would then have to go through this meaningless exercise of converting some of its calculations to the screen in one part of the abacus in order to receive them in another, and it would be ridiculous since you end up right where you started, with data turning into itself. Instead of seeing the whole thing like some kind of moron's Chess game, where each move is a dumb response to the other in an endless chain reaction, we should see the Chess game as merely an extension of the game players and game makers. The better the Chess player, the more they can telegraph their moves (motives) strategically. They are playing an entire game at once, not just reacting. The game limits their ability to push out their entire vision all at once, but that doesn't mean that the entire game is not being advanced by an overarching desire. On every level there are desires, plans, and capacities. The player can only express herself through the game (physics) but she can add new games (chemistry, geology, genetics, biology, zoology, anthropology, technology) by building them from the simpler examples of Chess. What you are doing is looking at the movie and telling me "If there were a director or producer, you would see the actors talking to them in the movie". Stop looking for the camera in the movie - you are the camera already. Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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.