On Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:57:39 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > 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>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological
> >> >> events
> >> >> follow deterministic or probabilistic rules then you will also
> >> >> 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
> > arm, they would simply predict when I think I am moving my arm.
> And after that they would predict the lottery numbers.
So you are saying that my arm moves at random times like the lottery pays
off randomly? How come I can predict when I am about to move my arm and be
right every time?
> >> "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
> > other than activity in my brain. The fact that both of us are now
> > manipulating our own brain chemistry, striated muscle tissue,
> > and keyboard from the top-down is indisputably obvious. Your brain
> > 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
> > it.
> A top-down effect would result in things happening at the low level
> seemingly magically.
You only think that because your world view is panmechanistic instead of
panpsychic. Since we observe the ordinary top-down control of our own
voluntary muscles and some mental capacities, the challenge is not to
explain away this fact to preserve an arbitrary attachment to a particular
cosmology, but to see that in fact, all that we see as being low and high
level are defined by relativistic perception. Low and high are aesthetic
perspectives, not objective realities. In reality, low and high can be
discerned as separate in some sense and they are united in another sense.
Of the two, Top-down is more important, since all bottom up processes are
meaningless if a person is in a coma.
> If it is all consistent with physics then it
> isn't a top-down effect.
It is the job of physics to be consistent with reality, not the other way
> Again and again I bring this up and you say
> that I misrepresent you, that I haven't understood your theory, while
> it is you who have not understood the meaning of your own words.
Seriously, that is your best argument? That I must not know what my own
words mean since they don't make sense to you? It may not be your fault. I
have yet to see someone with the strong panmechanistic view successfully
question their own own belief, so it is entirely possible that you won't be
able to do that, barring a life-changing neurological or psychological
event. Rest assured that I understand precisely my own words and your
words, and it is you who have not seen more than one side of the argument.
> >> 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
> > addressed your straw man many times already.
> I am trying to explain to you that you are contradicting yourself. If
> you agree that the brain functions consistently with physical laws
> then you have to to agree that consciousness does not directly affect
> brain behaviour, since there is no place for consciousness in chemical
There doesn't need to be any place for consciousness in chemical equations,
just as there doesn't need to be any place for images in the pixels or
flicker rate on a video screen. When we watch TV, we watch TV programs, not
pixels turning off and on. This is what the universe is made of -
perceptual relativity. Existence is a false concept - relevance of sense is
the universal truth.
This is not to say that consciousness does not exist or is
> not important, just that it is not directly or separately or top-down
> causally efficacious.
Then in what sense do you claim consciousness "exists"? As a metaphysical
ephiphenomenon which appears magically in never-never land for no
> > I think that the current scientific position is likely a kind of
> > convulsion. a post traumatic nostalgic compensation for the revelations
> > the 20th century. There is no such thing as probability in physics, only
> > appearance of such from a partially informed perspective. There is
> > 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/
> You do realise that quantum level effect are crucially important in
> the operation of the semiconductors in computers?
You don't have to use semiconductors to build a computing machine.
> 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 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.