On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
>
> >> If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological 
> events 
> >> follow deterministic or probabilistic rules then you will also follow 
> >> deterministic or probabilistic rules. 
> > 
> > 
> > That's a tautology. If I move my arm, then I am causing improbable 
> > neurological events to occur. Muscles, cells, molecules follow my 
> intention 
> > rather than their own. The cells are not causing my arm to move - if 
> they 
> > were, that would be a spasm. 
>
> Muscles and cells follow your intention if they receive input from 
> conscious centres in your brain, but the cells in those centres follow 
> the mechanistic rules that neuroscientists know and love.


If that were so, then neuroscientists would not need to ask me to move my 
arm, they would simply predict when I think I am moving my arm.
 

> "Your 
> intentions" are the result of the activity in your brain. "Your 
> intentions" do not cause any magical top-down effects. 
>

The only magic is the idea that activity in my brain knows about anything 
other than activity in my brain. The fact that both of us are now 
manipulating our own brain chemistry, striated muscle tissue, fingertips, 
and keyboard from the top-down is indisputably obvious. Your brain doesn't 
dictate what you will say or do - it is your personal experience which 
shapes your brain activity at least as much as your experience is shaped by 
it.
 

>
> >> However, you don't believe that this is the case. So sometimes there 
> must 
> >> be neurological events which are "spontaneous" according to your 
> definition 
> >> - outside the normal causal chain. 
> > 
> > 
> > Spontaneous *IS* the normal causality. It isn't a 'chain'. The entire 
> body 
> > and brain serve a single purpose - to support a particular quality of 
> > participatory experience. If it is not doing that, then the person is 
> dead 
> > or in a coma. Unconsciousness is your causal chain. Consciousness is 
> > intentional self-modification of causality itself. 
>
> But there is no evidence of a breach in the normal chain of causality 
> in the brain or anywhere else. Don't you think it should be obvious 
> somewhere after centuries of biological research? 
>

I can't help it that you are incapable of understanding my argument. I have 
addressed your straw man many times already. 

All chains of causality are normalized in retrospect. Whatever changes are 
associated with voluntary action are the only changes necessary. It's very 
simple, but I can't make you see it. If you arbitrarily draw a line at 
physics, then biology is impossible. If you rule out technology, then human 
flight is impossible. These rules and partitions are fictional.
 

>
> >> Absent this, you return to the default scientific position. 
> > 
> > 
> > The default scientific position is that particles decay after a "random" 
> > duration (i.e. spontaneous), making each event in the cosmos subject to 
> > non-deterministic and unique outcomes. Determinism is an approximate 
> view 
> > from a great distance. This is what Multisense Realism specifically 
> > suggests: Perceptual relativity based on sense attenuation as the sole 
> > universal principle. 
>
> The current scientific position is indeed that reality is not 
> deterministic but probabilistic, with true random events. The many 
> worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics restores determinism, but 
> from the first person perspective reality is still probabilistic. 
> Nevertheless, events at a biological scale appear as "classical". 
>

I think that the current scientific position is likely a kind of delusional 
convulsion. a post traumatic nostalgic compensation for the revelations of 
the 20th century. There is no such thing as probability in physics, only an 
appearance of such from a partially informed perspective. There is nothing 
any more classical about biology than there is anything else, as 
photosynthesis already shows quantum effects.

http://qubit-ulm.com/2010/09/quantum-coherence-in-photosynthesis/

Hey, look what else has quantum effects in biology:

http://qubit-ulm.com/2010/10/quantum-effects-in-ion-channels/

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 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